So, I’m unclear regarding the case against the SSPX in general. How are they canonically irregular, exactly? The case has not been made. The only difference between the SSPX and the other groups are the consecrations. China is a much worse problem but those clowns aren’t excommunicated and the Chinese money spends just fine. Actually, the situation of much of the current hierarchy is canonically worse. Many of them are not even Catholic, because they are manifest heretics. How is Prevost the pope? The SSPX case for canonical regularity is absolutely sound even if Prevost says otherwise. Why would one listen to him? His “election” was invalid because the number of electors was exceeded. Also, he is a manifest heretic. You mentioned a generational change in the hierarchy being needed for real change. It won’t matter. I understand the point, the disaster of the boomer generation and all, but there is a much more fundamental problem: homosexuality in the hierarchy. The Vatican has become one big satanic bath house. This will never end without ripping it out at the roots. As no one seems to be interested in facing the FULL truth of the problem, the crisis will last until the end. There are remedies that pass legal muster to deal with this (the election of Hilderbrand based on the bull of Nicholas II) but that is going nowhere fast. It’s tuff to run a church without Chinese money you know. Sorry for being long winded. I just truly believe that the SSPX is canonically regular, with the condition that a state of emergency exists for more reasons than can or should be listed here.
You say: "We are asked to go beyond reason into mystery but never to embrace a flagrant contradiction, which would be damaging to mental sanity; nor can we ever be required to violate a sacred mystery, which is impiety or sacrilege. " But then you advise that the only route is to follow the "Ecclesia Dei"/approved Traditional orders and not the SSPX. THAT is embracing flagrant contradiction because all the approved groups, in order to keep the Mass of all ages, had to sign a document saying they believe the Norvus Ordo is also good. Obviously this is untrue. Validity isn't the question here - the document says it is good. It is not. The SSPX is the only group willing to take the necessary steps that reason requires. They cannot and will not sign such a document. And you and others are faulting them for it. I wonder how many faithful and bishops during the Arian crisis, to keep the peace, said that while Arianism isn't the best, it is also valid and good for the unity of the Church requires that we not split into groups. The strength of the Church always depends on good men fighting the particular evil in the world AND IN THE CHURCH during his time - the Franciscans promoting radical poverty and ascetism when the world AND THE CHURCH fell into materialism. We are now drowining in Modernism - we need to support and fight for and with groups, like SSPX, that do not accept to mingle the doctrines of Modernism with true and pure Orthodoxy.
I recognize the parallels with the Arian crisis, but this does not automatically endorse all that the SSPX is or says or does. There is certainly room for disagreement here.
I didn't mean to sound rude - you are extremely intelligent but I feel like sometimes very intelligent people can overthink things. I've read many of your books and they are amazing. But I've also read other books, such as Iota Unum and They Have Uncrowned Him as well as the trilogy on the new Mass from Michael Davies. They were all written well before yours and do quite a good job of uncovering Modernism. I really wish I could get my hands on Dietrich von Hildebrand's book on the Modernism crisis ruining the liturgy (The Devastated Vineyard) but it is impossible to find in print now. I know I'm not as smart as you, but I feel like you are trying too hard to not endorse SSPX because it feels safer for you, being an accepted Catholic writer.
Lefebvre explained that in the Protocol he was asked to sign (and that the FSSP signs), he was being asked to recognize validity, which in canon law carries the implication of legitimacy which implies goodness because the Church cannot promulgate a harmful universal rite or a dangerous rite or a rite that is pastorally destructive. Lefebvre (and you I think) believe these all to be true about the new mass.
Moreover, Lefebvre did not dispute the validity of the new rites of the sacraments, although he feared they would be invalidated by the lack of due intention on the part of badly formed priests.
So, I’m unclear regarding the case against the SSPX in general. How are they canonically irregular, exactly? The case has not been made. The only difference between the SSPX and the other groups are the consecrations. China is a much worse problem but those clowns aren’t excommunicated and the Chinese money spends just fine. Actually, the situation of much of the current hierarchy is canonically worse. Many of them are not even Catholic, because they are manifest heretics. How is Prevost the pope? The SSPX case for canonical regularity is absolutely sound even if Prevost says otherwise. Why would one listen to him? His “election” was invalid because the number of electors was exceeded. Also, he is a manifest heretic. You mentioned a generational change in the hierarchy being needed for real change. It won’t matter. I understand the point, the disaster of the boomer generation and all, but there is a much more fundamental problem: homosexuality in the hierarchy. The Vatican has become one big satanic bath house. This will never end without ripping it out at the roots. As no one seems to be interested in facing the FULL truth of the problem, the crisis will last until the end. There are remedies that pass legal muster to deal with this (the election of Hilderbrand based on the bull of Nicholas II) but that is going nowhere fast. It’s tuff to run a church without Chinese money you know. Sorry for being long winded. I just truly believe that the SSPX is canonically regular, with the condition that a state of emergency exists for more reasons than can or should be listed here.
You say: "We are asked to go beyond reason into mystery but never to embrace a flagrant contradiction, which would be damaging to mental sanity; nor can we ever be required to violate a sacred mystery, which is impiety or sacrilege. " But then you advise that the only route is to follow the "Ecclesia Dei"/approved Traditional orders and not the SSPX. THAT is embracing flagrant contradiction because all the approved groups, in order to keep the Mass of all ages, had to sign a document saying they believe the Norvus Ordo is also good. Obviously this is untrue. Validity isn't the question here - the document says it is good. It is not. The SSPX is the only group willing to take the necessary steps that reason requires. They cannot and will not sign such a document. And you and others are faulting them for it. I wonder how many faithful and bishops during the Arian crisis, to keep the peace, said that while Arianism isn't the best, it is also valid and good for the unity of the Church requires that we not split into groups. The strength of the Church always depends on good men fighting the particular evil in the world AND IN THE CHURCH during his time - the Franciscans promoting radical poverty and ascetism when the world AND THE CHURCH fell into materialism. We are now drowining in Modernism - we need to support and fight for and with groups, like SSPX, that do not accept to mingle the doctrines of Modernism with true and pure Orthodoxy.
This is inaccurate. No group was asked to sign something as vague as "the Novus Ordo is good." Rather, they agreed that it was valid.
Moreover, you are speaking to me as if I do not understand what Modernism is, when I practically "wrote the book" on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAkh6KPbYMM
I recognize the parallels with the Arian crisis, but this does not automatically endorse all that the SSPX is or says or does. There is certainly room for disagreement here.
I didn't mean to sound rude - you are extremely intelligent but I feel like sometimes very intelligent people can overthink things. I've read many of your books and they are amazing. But I've also read other books, such as Iota Unum and They Have Uncrowned Him as well as the trilogy on the new Mass from Michael Davies. They were all written well before yours and do quite a good job of uncovering Modernism. I really wish I could get my hands on Dietrich von Hildebrand's book on the Modernism crisis ruining the liturgy (The Devastated Vineyard) but it is impossible to find in print now. I know I'm not as smart as you, but I feel like you are trying too hard to not endorse SSPX because it feels safer for you, being an accepted Catholic writer.
Lefebvre explained that in the Protocol he was asked to sign (and that the FSSP signs), he was being asked to recognize validity, which in canon law carries the implication of legitimacy which implies goodness because the Church cannot promulgate a harmful universal rite or a dangerous rite or a rite that is pastorally destructive. Lefebvre (and you I think) believe these all to be true about the new mass.
I disagree that validity always carries the notion of licitness and legitimacy, for the reasons given here:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/11/the-four-qualities-of-liturgy-validity.html
Moreover, Lefebvre did not dispute the validity of the new rites of the sacraments, although he feared they would be invalidated by the lack of due intention on the part of badly formed priests.
Thanks for reading my books!