Benefit of the Doubt

JMJ

Introduction

!!! From my point of view and based on my understanding of the events !!!

At this point it seems that Cardinal Fernandez et al are either malicious, incompetent or geniuses.

I'm only partly kidding ...

Aside from the surprisingly magnanimous action of Pope Francis providing the SSPX priest with faculties for confession and ability to witness marriages, there has been a long silence between Rome and the SSPX with little or no formal talks or discussions regarding the SSPX state of canonical limbo.

While the FSSP et al were able to meet with Pope Leo XIV, while requests from the SSPX went unanswered ... that is until after the latest unanswered request they announced the date for the consecration of four new bishops.

Only then did the Vatican apparatus lumber into motion. A meeting was held and the speed with which the Vatican issued its press release - within hours of the meeting's conclusion - felt to me like a pre-planned attempt at manipulation that fell short of the mark.

I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged. (link)

The requirement to postpone that consecrations was, I believe, the death-knell of any hope for frank and open discussions (link1, link2, link3). The SSPX has been through this exact situation before and the requirement to postpone the consecrations were seen as a repeat of the 1988 delay tactics. The setting of Vatican 2 as off-limits was a return of the 'mantra' - accept the council and accept the new mass.

As it seems impossible for Cardinal Fernandez to not understand the situation with the SSPX, the only conclusion is that they knew what they were doing.

In order to give them the benefit of the doubt I have come to three possible explanations.

Malicious

Cardinal Fernandez' intent was to draw the SSPX into a discussion, to make a minimal or token effort at said discussion, and present an unpalatable (ie compromise) condition.

This was done in order to ensure that the SSPX was once again "excommunicated", therefore enabling a program of ostracization of all Traditional Catholics and pre-conciliar doctrine from the Catholic Church.

Further, given the reception of representatives of the Orthodox and Protestants at the Vatican - this adherence to the 'mantra' is nothing short of hypocritical.

Incompetent

Cardinal Fernandez' handling of the situation was limited to a repeat of the 1988 response with an addendum of the 1996 explanatory note.

This approach ignored every other element, paper, discussion that was developed in the decades that followed the 1988 act - basically creating a 'back to the past' perspective. This placed Rome in a position to simply restart everything from scratch.

From a negotiation perspective, ignorance or willfully ignoring everything that came before is sheer incompetence, unless one wants to ensure that any negotiations fail or are prematurely aborted (see above option).

Genius

Here's one different and probably equally unpopular and unlikely perspective: Rome is neither malicious nor incompetent.

Who says that Cardinal Fernandez isn't a traditionalist in a wolf's pelt and Pope Leo XIV a hidden Traditionalist???

I can see a number of consequences if Rome were to officially allow the SSPX to consecrate bishops without accepting V2 and the NOM:

Within the Church

Open conflict: This would be a repeat persecution of the "Traditionalists" that happened immediately after the Second Vatican Council between Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious (Monks, Nuns etc) and laity. We had a preview of this when Pope Benedict XVI corrected the 'pro multis'. The grey haired Catholics were outraged and freaked that this represented a 'return' to before the council.
Schism: Those members of the hierarchy and laity who strongly promote various modern theories (Theological, Liturgical and Social) would break off formally - taking Church property with them.
Emptying: If the Church holds to its Dogmas and Doctrines, which are culturally irreconcilable with the modern world, then there will be a mass exodus from Catholic Churches.

Outside the Church

Political Attacks: The Vatican is a 'State' and as a result there is an exchange of ambassadors between countries, agreements, treaties etc. Reasserting key dogmas and doctrines that have been ... unspoken for close to fifty years will result in strains on relations with other countries, recall of ambassadors and perhaps even sanctions.
Attacks on the economics of the Catholic Church: This would simply be the restriction of financial relations, calling of loans, and revocation of the charitable status of the Church and its properties.
Persecution of the Catholic Church and its members: This would probably include societal pressures and censures in Western Countries and physical persecution elsewhere in the world. Overtime, we could see a reversion to the second-class status of Catholics.
Martyrdom: There will be martyrs and there will be many.

This is the best case reason why Cardinal Fernandez has made such a sloppy business of the SSPX relations. After the Second Vatican Council, the members of the Church grew steadily closer to the World and the Flesh transforming the Catholic Church into the worlds larges Non-Government Organiazation (NGO). There are even those who want to deny the existence of the Devil.

Conclusion

Whatever the reason for the Vatican's treatment of Traditional Catholics and religious orders (SSPX, FFI et al), at this point, the escalation of commitment (Sunk Cost Fallacy) is so enormous that turning back is untenable to those who've invested. Like in the case of the In some cases it takes a new leader who was not involved to make a change (e.g. PacifiCat Project).

Pope Leo XIV seems invested in the "Council" and disinterested in dealing with SSPX and Traditionalists as Benedict XVI did ... and was punished for so doing.

My conclusion is that it is unlikely that Pope Leo XIV will be the Vicar of Christ who restores both the SSPX and Traditional Catholics to First Class Citizenship.

P^3

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

+ JMJ Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog