Well THAT was a much needed blast of fresh air. I didn’t lose any sleep last night, and I woke up this morning feeling very cheerful. And you brilliantly described here so much better than anything I could scrawl as to why. Thank you!
This is the most helpful thing I have read in ages. I cannot thank you enough for putting so well into words thoughts that have been jumbled in my mind. On one level, I have been quite angry and disturbed by this latest document, but I also had some odd sense of relief. I've felt that way a few times on different levels over different occurrences this past year, actually. It feels like a mighty shift is occurring, and, because everything is so horribly bad right now, the correction is going to be a doozy. Even so, it's got to happen. We'll never get out of this without it. I know that's true, even if, humanly speaking, it freaks me out.
This post was for me the written form of the Godfather "You can act like a man!" scene. I had been down today, and I think this post is what I needed to get moving. Thank you.
I have a slightly different take. Bergolio could barely hide his contempt for Christ in his document… and finally some bishops like the VP of the French conference of bishops who politely said Bergolio sounds extremely mean.
What if a conference of bishops (Hong Kong would be ideal first domino because it would undermine the deal negotiated by McCarrick and Parolin with the CCP in the most populous part of the world) announced that they’re reverting back to TLM full-time because they can’t figure out a standard expression of the Novus Ordo amid such a global patchwork. Should they celebrate mass like the dancing priest in NYC or bishop Tuco Fernandez in Argentina or Cardinal Marx in Munich and where does Patchamama fit in all this?
Bishops need to start documenting, juxtaposing and sharing on social media irreverent Novus Ordo clowns (dancing, baptizing babies with water guns, leaving church on a scooter, etc.) amid empty pews with reverent TLM priests in packed churches.
Bergolio wants a decentralized church to empower bishops. Fine. Now they must stiffen their spine, put on the armour of faith and join us in battle.
the new bishop of Hong Kong is a CCP pick. It's too late for these kinds of political actions. If bishops wanted to take back the Church they would have said no in 1970.
"Bishops need to start documenting, juxtaposing and sharing on social media"... The "conservative" bishops, you mean? The ones who have sat meekly by while the papal wrecking ball has been weilded. The ones who sat silently in Baltimore in 2018 when Cupich told them Bergoglio had ordered them NOt to investigate McCarrick... those bishops? Or were there some other ones I don't know about?
When you speak of "bad" bishops, I assume you're talking in a relative sense, right? I can't really think of any "good" bishops either. There's the faithless and the spineless. Maybe a handful that are better than the spineless - and I do mean fewer than a dozen in the world. My bishop is in the first group, but for now the TLM parish I attend will probably fly under the radar.
Oh, how I want this to be my own attitude! yet, "where Peter is, there is the Church." I can't leave Peter, no matter how absolutely mistaken he is or how cruel or misguided I think he is. I agree that now things are more real. One has only to get familiar with the Old Mass (and by extension the Old Faith) to see how very, very different and how very bleached and amputated the New Mass is -- they aren't really two forms of one thing; they're two different things. Recognizing this is good. But if we firmly believe in following Jesus, then we have to follow the shepherd His church gives us, even if we appear to be going farther away from the water of life. It's a complete puzzle, and one I am praying to navigate properly.
I'm sorry Sibyl, but there is no puzzle here. You've answered the question yourself. What is the pope doing? He's leading you away from the water of life. He's leading you away from Christ. What is obedience for? It's for our salvation. If the person set above us is leading us to everlasting perdition, is that the person to follow? Obedience is not the end; it's the means. Holy obedience is obedience PRIMARILY to Christ so if the person in authority abuses that authority and opposes Christ, do you obey him? The purpose of the Church is to lead you to Christ. If a man who is set above you in the hierarchy is leading you away from Christ... what does "away from Christ" really mean? It means hell. There are only two possible final destinies. We have been soaked in lies, one of the worst has been the satanic lie that obedience to the hierarchy is the solution to everything. If the hierarchy abandons the Catholic Faith, your duty of obedience to them ends. It's not difficult in the least.
What I sense in your tone is not confusion, but fear. Timidity. You know perfectly well what the truth is, but the implications are frightening because they require you to take control of your own intellect and will, and cease giving away that duty to others.
The following was written by my friend Pat Archbold three years ago. He maintains that the whole purpose of this pontificate has been to back faithful Catholics into a corner, and blackmail them with threats of schism or "disobedience" into abandoning the Catholic religion. They're using the distorted modern misconception of obedience as a weapon against exactly people like you, because you have been taught a lie about obedience, what it is, and what it is for.
~
"... They will move us back to the indult era and consolidate us into a few groups (FSSP, ICKSP, etc) and some grandfathered indult locations. They will claim, and their lickspittle brethren in the mainstream Catholic media will gush, that this is not an anti-Traditional move. “The Pope hasn’t done away with one single Traditional mass, this is about governance only.”
And when the dust settles, that is when the Pope will lower the boom. No, he won’t ban the Traditional Latin Mass outright, I don’t think. Too much blowback for that and there is a much easier way to achieve his aims. The Pope will do something much worse than ban it. He is going to change it. He is going to change the 1962 missal.
The Pope will exercise his legitimate authority to aggiornomento the 1962 missal. Perhaps he will replace the lectionary with the current 3 year one, changes some prayers, permit communion in the hand, or some other changes that will shock the consciences of traditional Catholics. They will Vatican Two the TLM. You can hear them now, “The Pope didn’t ban the Latin Mass, he just used his legitimate authority over the liturgy to make it more meaningful.”
So there you have it. Any approved group that resists the changes or complains too loud gets the Apostolic Visitation and is squashed for refusal to submit to the Pontiff. Any diocesan indult community that resists is squashed. And any Catholic who thinks he can go underground and just have masses said in someone’s house? Nope. Individual priests no longer have the right to say the mass. Do it and you have refused to submit to the authority of the Pope. You are a schismatic. So too any bishop. You either accept the Vatican Two boot on your neck or you are a schismatic.
Any attempt to live an authentic traditional Catholic life, whether as a religious, or just attending the mass of the ages, will make you a schismatic by default. Go SSPX, you are schismatic. Go to an underground mass. Schismatic. Form a group of faithful under a traditional rule without permission of Rome, schismatic. They will turn any and all attempts to live a traditional Catholic life into an act of disobedience.
And there it is. This is how you make a defacto schism into a real one with the faithful Catholics on the outside looking in. I know many of you will say that they can’t legitimately exercise their authority in this way or that, and you are right. But it doesn’t matter. The last 5 years prove that doesn’t matter. Power is the only thing that matters. They have cut off every escape path and are driving us to the cliff, because that is where they want us. Choose. Obedience or your faith.
You have said Pope Francis and the people in charge are leading us away from the water of life. Away from Christ. If you're convinced about that, then now you're just changing the subject.
I am pleased to share your joy in having clarity forced upon us. Being 73 I have waited a long time for this and I see it as a sign that the BVM is starting to make her move. With heaven now providing a clear choice we must realize that a great deal of suffering is coming . The side we must align ourselves with has been made clear so that we can hold fast and get through with confidence. We will know why we are suffering and to be able to participate in the sufferings of our Savior should fill us with fervor .
I think you're profoundly wrong, Hilary. The abyss between pre- and post-Vatican II that you are carving out and deepening will only make Pope Francis and like-minded bishops double down and say "I told you so - about these rebellious and divisive rad trads!" I and many others continue to adhere to what you call the "comforting, sweet, soothing lies", and the "nonsensical . . . meaningless, heretical gibberish of 'hermeneutic of continuity.'" Indeed, from now on, more than ever, that will be the only realistic way forward. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.
I know you think that, Father. Fortunately I know that your moderate "conservative" solution has availed exactly this situation. They will blame us because it's part of the game; it's called "gaslighting" by psychologists, blaming the victim. Your solution has brought us here, and joining the oppressor, grovelling and begging not to be shot along with the rest of the prisoners, doesn't make you the good guy.
This from a theologian friend who watches the news closely, but can't be identified because of our current loving and merciful leadership:
¬¬
"The MP does not affect the rad trads in any way, except to make them more radicalised"
The people being targeted are the good soldiers, who have done everything the Church asked of them. They're the ones being punished.
So one might ask the "now, more than ever, we have to submit" crowd: To what end? You told us if we submit, we would be treated fairly, at least left alone to practice the Faith of our fathers. No doubt you were in earnest. But we see that that "fair treatment" (better, the scraps that fall from our masters' table) is dependent solely on the whim of those who hate the Mass, who can take them away even without cause.
Now, they might have an answer for that. I think there is an answer for that. But force them to make it.
Right now, the argument "Obey, submit, to keep your rights" is a hard sell - since those who have been doing that for forty years have only received the whip. Make them defend that position.
You don't sue for peace when the enemy has already nuked Poland.
My friend continues: ""Why should we back down? It has gotten us exactly nothing - and in fact, we're now worse off than when we started. And your answer is, cringe some more?"
I'm not "grovelling" before anyone, Hilary; nor am I some kind of ecclesiastical politican trying to be seen as a "good guy". I'm simply re-stating what I've always (pre- and post- Francis) held and professed to be the truth: like Benedict XVI, I hold that there is no radical incompatibility beween Sacred Tradition and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo nexus. And it seems to me that the passionate insistence to the contrary of yourself and like-minded traditionalists is mainly what "has brought us here" - as is evident from the text of Traditionis Custodes and its explanatory papal letter. BH
" I hold that there is no radical incompatibility between Sacred Tradition and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo nexus." I know. Everyone knows because you've been preaching it everywhere for decades. But you're manifestly incorrect. I'm sorry. The entire floor of your position has entirely collapsed under your feet since March 2013. I can understand wanting to stick with it after so much investment. But you'll excuse me for observing the whole project simply self-evidently a massive failure and based on incontestably erroneous premises. There's no more of that ground for anyone to stand on. It's been taken away. Forcibly, and not by me or mine.
I know you're not going to be able to let this go; but you're not going to win any converts here. You don't need to keep coming back and reciting the cant. I know it well, and so does everyone else.
This right here, folks. "...that you are carving out and deepening..." What an absurd thing to say. Who exactly is doing what now? There is such a thing is objective truth, whether our supposed shepherds own to it or not. And gaslighting is a manipulative abuse.
Such a provocative post, Hilary. These past days I've been mulling over the Ascension when blessed prophets and holy people accompanied Christ , and wondering what ccomposed their "Christian" life - just in case it comes to that, as you spelled out, i.e. living without the Mass perhaps for the best part of a year. It may not be right now but likely we are heading that way. We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and while we can say we are part of every Mass that takes place, we by looks of it, cannot content ourselves with spiritually assisting at Masses where we are not present. History is full of Catholics living without Mass for years on end. Being part of a group still seems essential. Why wouldnt the sspx be the next best option? louise
I hesitate to recommend the SSPX in general, but not for the usual reasons. All my canonical qualms evaporated when they were granted universal jurisdiction for Mass and confessions. I only hold back because I don't want people to think they are THE solution. I guess I just haven't finished my own investigations. But the Vatican itself some time ago said that for laypeople who are sincerely only seeking a place to receive the sacraments in peace in the old rites, as long as there was no "intention" of schism it's acceptable to attend there, and even to contribute financially. There are of course always going to be some "cultural" problems with any group that is excluded and exclusive from the "mainstream", and there are always going to be contentions. Moreover, there is the danger of thinking of the SSPX as a kind of utopian haven, and the danger of being let down badly when it turns out they are just normal people with all the normal flaws, and even subject to the same flaws of modernity as everyone else. This is still planet earth, after all. I think given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that they've been granted universal jurisdiction - even with the danger that "herding" us all into a kind of concentration camp has been the purpose of the Bergoglians all along - that it's difficult to argue against them, with the need for the sacramental life being so fundamental. (And please don't listen to the hysterical detractors using intemperate language online.) I haven't had very much to do with them in all this time, being able until recently to attend Mass mostly at FSSP parishes and the Oratory or diocesan TLMs, so if I am hesitant it's also because I don't know them well personally. But I will say that all my interactions with them or their lay adherents have been completely positive. I know that's not the case for everyone, but for me it was.
I suppose too that with this latest action of the pope's so many people are going to be flooding into the SSPX churches that they will rapidly cease to be as fringy and as much an outside group as they have been. And I think that will be good for them too. Nothing like a massive influx of outsiders with new ideas and opinions and life experiences to dissipate any of the "cultish" tendencies that tend to form naturally when a group is more isolated.
I did not know this about the SSPX, namely that the faithful have had an 'all clear' to attend the Mass as you say. I had heard about weddings and, of course, the confessions granted during—and, I supposed continued since the year of Mercy.
I read the "Letter to Confused Catholics" at your recommendation. The lack of hardly any episcopal writing quite like it of late shows the "hermeneutic of continuity" to sound increasingly like a rather bogus slogan. And, here's the thing, to be at all versed in Church's anti-modernism magisterium, shows LeFebvre's letter to be rather modest. There's hardly anything there, at first blush, that differs from the Faith of our Fathers.
If the HoC is the way to go, why not quote the earlier magisterium more. Why's it gotta be only V2, JP2, cherry-picked Augustine or bust?
I'm now currently rereading Pius X's Pascendi. His assessment of the utter pandemic of Modernism is staggering to me. Unless he was overstating it—which I’d doubt. He shows modernism to be a complete perversity, rotten to the absolute core. But if it was such a total threat to the faith of the Church and so recent, and if we're supposed to be currently in continuity with our preceding proclamations, why are we so utterly silent on it? Or rather, to what purpose are we exactly mimicking modernist intonations in our "tenets, manner of speech, conduct?"
Well THAT was a much needed blast of fresh air. I didn’t lose any sleep last night, and I woke up this morning feeling very cheerful. And you brilliantly described here so much better than anything I could scrawl as to why. Thank you!
This is the most helpful thing I have read in ages. I cannot thank you enough for putting so well into words thoughts that have been jumbled in my mind. On one level, I have been quite angry and disturbed by this latest document, but I also had some odd sense of relief. I've felt that way a few times on different levels over different occurrences this past year, actually. It feels like a mighty shift is occurring, and, because everything is so horribly bad right now, the correction is going to be a doozy. Even so, it's got to happen. We'll never get out of this without it. I know that's true, even if, humanly speaking, it freaks me out.
This post was for me the written form of the Godfather "You can act like a man!" scene. I had been down today, and I think this post is what I needed to get moving. Thank you.
I have a slightly different take. Bergolio could barely hide his contempt for Christ in his document… and finally some bishops like the VP of the French conference of bishops who politely said Bergolio sounds extremely mean.
What if a conference of bishops (Hong Kong would be ideal first domino because it would undermine the deal negotiated by McCarrick and Parolin with the CCP in the most populous part of the world) announced that they’re reverting back to TLM full-time because they can’t figure out a standard expression of the Novus Ordo amid such a global patchwork. Should they celebrate mass like the dancing priest in NYC or bishop Tuco Fernandez in Argentina or Cardinal Marx in Munich and where does Patchamama fit in all this?
Bishops need to start documenting, juxtaposing and sharing on social media irreverent Novus Ordo clowns (dancing, baptizing babies with water guns, leaving church on a scooter, etc.) amid empty pews with reverent TLM priests in packed churches.
Bergolio wants a decentralized church to empower bishops. Fine. Now they must stiffen their spine, put on the armour of faith and join us in battle.
https://youtu.be/ShJ5KD0pjng
the new bishop of Hong Kong is a CCP pick. It's too late for these kinds of political actions. If bishops wanted to take back the Church they would have said no in 1970.
"Bishops need to start documenting, juxtaposing and sharing on social media"... The "conservative" bishops, you mean? The ones who have sat meekly by while the papal wrecking ball has been weilded. The ones who sat silently in Baltimore in 2018 when Cupich told them Bergoglio had ordered them NOt to investigate McCarrick... those bishops? Or were there some other ones I don't know about?
If anything, we no longer have to guess who the bad bishops are. They’ll reveal themselves to get on Bergolio’s radar and potentially get a red hat.
When you speak of "bad" bishops, I assume you're talking in a relative sense, right? I can't really think of any "good" bishops either. There's the faithless and the spineless. Maybe a handful that are better than the spineless - and I do mean fewer than a dozen in the world. My bishop is in the first group, but for now the TLM parish I attend will probably fly under the radar.
Oh, how I want this to be my own attitude! yet, "where Peter is, there is the Church." I can't leave Peter, no matter how absolutely mistaken he is or how cruel or misguided I think he is. I agree that now things are more real. One has only to get familiar with the Old Mass (and by extension the Old Faith) to see how very, very different and how very bleached and amputated the New Mass is -- they aren't really two forms of one thing; they're two different things. Recognizing this is good. But if we firmly believe in following Jesus, then we have to follow the shepherd His church gives us, even if we appear to be going farther away from the water of life. It's a complete puzzle, and one I am praying to navigate properly.
I'm sorry Sibyl, but there is no puzzle here. You've answered the question yourself. What is the pope doing? He's leading you away from the water of life. He's leading you away from Christ. What is obedience for? It's for our salvation. If the person set above us is leading us to everlasting perdition, is that the person to follow? Obedience is not the end; it's the means. Holy obedience is obedience PRIMARILY to Christ so if the person in authority abuses that authority and opposes Christ, do you obey him? The purpose of the Church is to lead you to Christ. If a man who is set above you in the hierarchy is leading you away from Christ... what does "away from Christ" really mean? It means hell. There are only two possible final destinies. We have been soaked in lies, one of the worst has been the satanic lie that obedience to the hierarchy is the solution to everything. If the hierarchy abandons the Catholic Faith, your duty of obedience to them ends. It's not difficult in the least.
What I sense in your tone is not confusion, but fear. Timidity. You know perfectly well what the truth is, but the implications are frightening because they require you to take control of your own intellect and will, and cease giving away that duty to others.
The following was written by my friend Pat Archbold three years ago. He maintains that the whole purpose of this pontificate has been to back faithful Catholics into a corner, and blackmail them with threats of schism or "disobedience" into abandoning the Catholic religion. They're using the distorted modern misconception of obedience as a weapon against exactly people like you, because you have been taught a lie about obedience, what it is, and what it is for.
~
"... They will move us back to the indult era and consolidate us into a few groups (FSSP, ICKSP, etc) and some grandfathered indult locations. They will claim, and their lickspittle brethren in the mainstream Catholic media will gush, that this is not an anti-Traditional move. “The Pope hasn’t done away with one single Traditional mass, this is about governance only.”
And when the dust settles, that is when the Pope will lower the boom. No, he won’t ban the Traditional Latin Mass outright, I don’t think. Too much blowback for that and there is a much easier way to achieve his aims. The Pope will do something much worse than ban it. He is going to change it. He is going to change the 1962 missal.
The Pope will exercise his legitimate authority to aggiornomento the 1962 missal. Perhaps he will replace the lectionary with the current 3 year one, changes some prayers, permit communion in the hand, or some other changes that will shock the consciences of traditional Catholics. They will Vatican Two the TLM. You can hear them now, “The Pope didn’t ban the Latin Mass, he just used his legitimate authority over the liturgy to make it more meaningful.”
So there you have it. Any approved group that resists the changes or complains too loud gets the Apostolic Visitation and is squashed for refusal to submit to the Pontiff. Any diocesan indult community that resists is squashed. And any Catholic who thinks he can go underground and just have masses said in someone’s house? Nope. Individual priests no longer have the right to say the mass. Do it and you have refused to submit to the authority of the Pope. You are a schismatic. So too any bishop. You either accept the Vatican Two boot on your neck or you are a schismatic.
Any attempt to live an authentic traditional Catholic life, whether as a religious, or just attending the mass of the ages, will make you a schismatic by default. Go SSPX, you are schismatic. Go to an underground mass. Schismatic. Form a group of faithful under a traditional rule without permission of Rome, schismatic. They will turn any and all attempts to live a traditional Catholic life into an act of disobedience.
And there it is. This is how you make a defacto schism into a real one with the faithful Catholics on the outside looking in. I know many of you will say that they can’t legitimately exercise their authority in this way or that, and you are right. But it doesn’t matter. The last 5 years prove that doesn’t matter. Power is the only thing that matters. They have cut off every escape path and are driving us to the cliff, because that is where they want us. Choose. Obedience or your faith.
Hm. But I am not convinced that the Novus Ordo means hell.
You have said Pope Francis and the people in charge are leading us away from the water of life. Away from Christ. If you're convinced about that, then now you're just changing the subject.
I am pleased to share your joy in having clarity forced upon us. Being 73 I have waited a long time for this and I see it as a sign that the BVM is starting to make her move. With heaven now providing a clear choice we must realize that a great deal of suffering is coming . The side we must align ourselves with has been made clear so that we can hold fast and get through with confidence. We will know why we are suffering and to be able to participate in the sufferings of our Savior should fill us with fervor .
I think you're profoundly wrong, Hilary. The abyss between pre- and post-Vatican II that you are carving out and deepening will only make Pope Francis and like-minded bishops double down and say "I told you so - about these rebellious and divisive rad trads!" I and many others continue to adhere to what you call the "comforting, sweet, soothing lies", and the "nonsensical . . . meaningless, heretical gibberish of 'hermeneutic of continuity.'" Indeed, from now on, more than ever, that will be the only realistic way forward. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S.
I know you think that, Father. Fortunately I know that your moderate "conservative" solution has availed exactly this situation. They will blame us because it's part of the game; it's called "gaslighting" by psychologists, blaming the victim. Your solution has brought us here, and joining the oppressor, grovelling and begging not to be shot along with the rest of the prisoners, doesn't make you the good guy.
This from a theologian friend who watches the news closely, but can't be identified because of our current loving and merciful leadership:
¬¬
"The MP does not affect the rad trads in any way, except to make them more radicalised"
The people being targeted are the good soldiers, who have done everything the Church asked of them. They're the ones being punished.
So one might ask the "now, more than ever, we have to submit" crowd: To what end? You told us if we submit, we would be treated fairly, at least left alone to practice the Faith of our fathers. No doubt you were in earnest. But we see that that "fair treatment" (better, the scraps that fall from our masters' table) is dependent solely on the whim of those who hate the Mass, who can take them away even without cause.
Now, they might have an answer for that. I think there is an answer for that. But force them to make it.
Right now, the argument "Obey, submit, to keep your rights" is a hard sell - since those who have been doing that for forty years have only received the whip. Make them defend that position.
¬¬
You don't sue for peace when the enemy has already nuked Poland.
My friend continues: ""Why should we back down? It has gotten us exactly nothing - and in fact, we're now worse off than when we started. And your answer is, cringe some more?"
I'm not "grovelling" before anyone, Hilary; nor am I some kind of ecclesiastical politican trying to be seen as a "good guy". I'm simply re-stating what I've always (pre- and post- Francis) held and professed to be the truth: like Benedict XVI, I hold that there is no radical incompatibility beween Sacred Tradition and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo nexus. And it seems to me that the passionate insistence to the contrary of yourself and like-minded traditionalists is mainly what "has brought us here" - as is evident from the text of Traditionis Custodes and its explanatory papal letter. BH
" I hold that there is no radical incompatibility between Sacred Tradition and the Vatican II/Novus Ordo nexus." I know. Everyone knows because you've been preaching it everywhere for decades. But you're manifestly incorrect. I'm sorry. The entire floor of your position has entirely collapsed under your feet since March 2013. I can understand wanting to stick with it after so much investment. But you'll excuse me for observing the whole project simply self-evidently a massive failure and based on incontestably erroneous premises. There's no more of that ground for anyone to stand on. It's been taken away. Forcibly, and not by me or mine.
I know you're not going to be able to let this go; but you're not going to win any converts here. You don't need to keep coming back and reciting the cant. I know it well, and so does everyone else.
Well, since I'm clearly not welcome . . .
Realistic way forward--to what, exactly?
This right here, folks. "...that you are carving out and deepening..." What an absurd thing to say. Who exactly is doing what now? There is such a thing is objective truth, whether our supposed shepherds own to it or not. And gaslighting is a manipulative abuse.
The only way out is through.
Such a provocative post, Hilary. These past days I've been mulling over the Ascension when blessed prophets and holy people accompanied Christ , and wondering what ccomposed their "Christian" life - just in case it comes to that, as you spelled out, i.e. living without the Mass perhaps for the best part of a year. It may not be right now but likely we are heading that way. We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and while we can say we are part of every Mass that takes place, we by looks of it, cannot content ourselves with spiritually assisting at Masses where we are not present. History is full of Catholics living without Mass for years on end. Being part of a group still seems essential. Why wouldnt the sspx be the next best option? louise
I hesitate to recommend the SSPX in general, but not for the usual reasons. All my canonical qualms evaporated when they were granted universal jurisdiction for Mass and confessions. I only hold back because I don't want people to think they are THE solution. I guess I just haven't finished my own investigations. But the Vatican itself some time ago said that for laypeople who are sincerely only seeking a place to receive the sacraments in peace in the old rites, as long as there was no "intention" of schism it's acceptable to attend there, and even to contribute financially. There are of course always going to be some "cultural" problems with any group that is excluded and exclusive from the "mainstream", and there are always going to be contentions. Moreover, there is the danger of thinking of the SSPX as a kind of utopian haven, and the danger of being let down badly when it turns out they are just normal people with all the normal flaws, and even subject to the same flaws of modernity as everyone else. This is still planet earth, after all. I think given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that they've been granted universal jurisdiction - even with the danger that "herding" us all into a kind of concentration camp has been the purpose of the Bergoglians all along - that it's difficult to argue against them, with the need for the sacramental life being so fundamental. (And please don't listen to the hysterical detractors using intemperate language online.) I haven't had very much to do with them in all this time, being able until recently to attend Mass mostly at FSSP parishes and the Oratory or diocesan TLMs, so if I am hesitant it's also because I don't know them well personally. But I will say that all my interactions with them or their lay adherents have been completely positive. I know that's not the case for everyone, but for me it was.
I suppose too that with this latest action of the pope's so many people are going to be flooding into the SSPX churches that they will rapidly cease to be as fringy and as much an outside group as they have been. And I think that will be good for them too. Nothing like a massive influx of outsiders with new ideas and opinions and life experiences to dissipate any of the "cultish" tendencies that tend to form naturally when a group is more isolated.
I did not know this about the SSPX, namely that the faithful have had an 'all clear' to attend the Mass as you say. I had heard about weddings and, of course, the confessions granted during—and, I supposed continued since the year of Mercy.
I read the "Letter to Confused Catholics" at your recommendation. The lack of hardly any episcopal writing quite like it of late shows the "hermeneutic of continuity" to sound increasingly like a rather bogus slogan. And, here's the thing, to be at all versed in Church's anti-modernism magisterium, shows LeFebvre's letter to be rather modest. There's hardly anything there, at first blush, that differs from the Faith of our Fathers.
If the HoC is the way to go, why not quote the earlier magisterium more. Why's it gotta be only V2, JP2, cherry-picked Augustine or bust?
I'm now currently rereading Pius X's Pascendi. His assessment of the utter pandemic of Modernism is staggering to me. Unless he was overstating it—which I’d doubt. He shows modernism to be a complete perversity, rotten to the absolute core. But if it was such a total threat to the faith of the Church and so recent, and if we're supposed to be currently in continuity with our preceding proclamations, why are we so utterly silent on it? Or rather, to what purpose are we exactly mimicking modernist intonations in our "tenets, manner of speech, conduct?"
These times really are “clarifying,” as you say.