Your arguments and those of several readers would only lead to straightforward and swift resolution of these conflicts if the Church hierarchy was not infiltrated with so many cardinals and bishops who do not want resolution; they want conflict. Discord keeps many of them “employed” in Rome. Discord helps them overcome the “boredom” of the simple, but enormously important diocesan duties to feed their flock. Vatican II, to a large extent, “let the cat out of the bag.” Too many interpretations over the years have weakened the Faith.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider pleads for a kind of "third way" -- a pastoral approach which would grant Papal approval to the consecrations in the interest of the 600,000+ faithful worldwide who are attached to the SSPX. He notes that similar situations in history -- the refusal of the Jesuits to grant the "St. Thomas" Catholics in India permission to use their own traditional (and fully valid) rite in the 17th century (a large contingent split off and became schismatic, though part of it later returned); the experience of the Russian Orthodox, who similarly refused permission for a traditionalist sector of the Church to retain their rites, resulting in the breaking off of the now-schismatic "Old Believers"; and other instances, in which graciously granting approval could have saved these groups from schism. He also points out that in 1967, the profession of faith had added to it a promise to assent with mind and will to not only the defined dogmas of the Church, but also the "ordinary magisterium" of statements that are not solemnly defined, including just "teachings" that come from various dicasteries of the Vatican (presumably with the approval of the Pope) -- Fiducia Supplicans comes to mind, but there are also problematic, non-dogmatic statements in Vatican II documents, for example. And that, he maintains, is a root of the problem: there are questionable "teachings" that the Vatican seems convinced must be assented to that the SSPX (and indeed, many ordinary Catholics) can't assent to. Is that novel requirement necessary and is it prudent?
Yes, and the SSPX argues-- with good reason-- that current policies and practices suggest that there IS some doctrine that must be accepted. Well, what is it, and where is it found in the actual Council documents?
Your arguments and those of several readers would only lead to straightforward and swift resolution of these conflicts if the Church hierarchy was not infiltrated with so many cardinals and bishops who do not want resolution; they want conflict. Discord keeps many of them “employed” in Rome. Discord helps them overcome the “boredom” of the simple, but enormously important diocesan duties to feed their flock. Vatican II, to a large extent, “let the cat out of the bag.” Too many interpretations over the years have weakened the Faith.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider pleads for a kind of "third way" -- a pastoral approach which would grant Papal approval to the consecrations in the interest of the 600,000+ faithful worldwide who are attached to the SSPX. He notes that similar situations in history -- the refusal of the Jesuits to grant the "St. Thomas" Catholics in India permission to use their own traditional (and fully valid) rite in the 17th century (a large contingent split off and became schismatic, though part of it later returned); the experience of the Russian Orthodox, who similarly refused permission for a traditionalist sector of the Church to retain their rites, resulting in the breaking off of the now-schismatic "Old Believers"; and other instances, in which graciously granting approval could have saved these groups from schism. He also points out that in 1967, the profession of faith had added to it a promise to assent with mind and will to not only the defined dogmas of the Church, but also the "ordinary magisterium" of statements that are not solemnly defined, including just "teachings" that come from various dicasteries of the Vatican (presumably with the approval of the Pope) -- Fiducia Supplicans comes to mind, but there are also problematic, non-dogmatic statements in Vatican II documents, for example. And that, he maintains, is a root of the problem: there are questionable "teachings" that the Vatican seems convinced must be assented to that the SSPX (and indeed, many ordinary Catholics) can't assent to. Is that novel requirement necessary and is it prudent?
I posted this elsewhere but I thought I would post it here also.
Pope John said he was not calling a Doctrinal Council.
Pope Paul VI at the Council conclusion said it was not a Doctrinal Council.
The SSPX say they accept all doctrines prior to V II.
The Vatican says they must accept the doctrines of Vatican II.
Can the Vatican list the new doctrines of Vatican II that the SSPX must accept?
Can the SSPX list what new items of Vatican II they do not accept?
Can we then just sort out what is doctrine and what is policy and practice?
Yes, and the SSPX argues-- with good reason-- that current policies and practices suggest that there IS some doctrine that must be accepted. Well, what is it, and where is it found in the actual Council documents?