We are at a crossroads, folks, when it comes to the Holy Father. Either he wants the FSSPX in communion with him or he does not for he is the only one that can change the status quo. The latter possibility is not one that I want to think about but the ball is clearly in his lap. All other actions aside, this is the one preeminent decision of his pontificate for it speaks to the welfare and the unity of the church at a time when the church badly needs all of its sons and daughters. Is true Justice to be rendered or are we being led astray by false promises? We shall see!
The next two months, IMHO, will tell all and it will affect the life of the church throughout the remainder of our tenure here on earth. For what it's worth I have been praying for such a decision for the last six months in my daily rosary and will continue to do so, whatever the outcome of this latest appeal.
And, with all due respect to Cardinal Hoyos, never in the history of the church was loyal dissent forbidden by those who, clearly, have the best of intentions and respect for the Holy Father. Only, it appears, in the 21st century is such a tactic being employed. I am referring, of course, to the so-called "conditions" which I find not only unnecessary but contrary to canon law. To equate dissent with schism is a tactic that only the Devil could come up with. Have there been any discussions on doctrine and dogma or is it that such discussions are off the table? I suspect that the latter is true and I find that inexcusable.
The crux of the issue it seems is this the SSPX wants the Pope to formally and publicly denounce at least some of the texts of the Second Vatican Council(that they find objectionable). If the Pope were to do this there would be likely be many schisms and seismic shifts in the church, probably for the better overall but, very difficult for many if not most of the bishops of Catholic Church to accept. This is a BIG request and apparently demand from the society before they will formally reconcile with the hierarchy, which I don't see happening anytime soon if ever.
There is room for disagreement on what Bishop Fellay means with respect to the 2nd Vatican council. I believe he wants to interpret the 2nd Vatican Council in light of what the church has always held to be true or, to put it another way, in light of Tradition. Let's remember that Pope Paul VI himself said the Council avoided proclaiming any infallible truths other than what had already been proclaimed and the Council was primarily pastoral in nature.
Now, if this is true and the aftermath of the Council has been a disaster pastorally with all the innovations and many clerics going off the deep end with respect to their preaching and actions on the altar of sacrifice, then it seems discussion on what the Council intended from the very beginning is not only necessary but required
to ensure the Church is on the right course in the 21st century. To say that a request, or even a demand for such discussions, is objectionable, is to go against canon law which is applicable to all involved,
not just to Bishop Fellay and company.
Reasonable men can differ but reason requires Justice
despite differences and it is Justice that must prevail. Who has been excommunicated since 1965? If I recall correctly, mainly the archbishop, his bishops and those attached to him (in Honolulu and Lincoln, NE), have been the target of such action -- totally inexcusable IMHO. As I have said before, and will keep on saying until it happens, the Holy Father could right the wrongs in a heartbeat if he so intended. The question that remains is: "what does he intend?"
Once Justice has been rendered, it seems reason can then take over for the good of the Church and for us all.