The perfect guess trap. Just needed that on the profile.

It was close, but I have voted how I’ve voted.

It's a complicated topic, and I appreciate your kindness. I don't necessarily have it all figured out either.

A wonderful retired bishop I had the privilege of living with said something one day I will never forget:

"You get used to the celibacy. That's not hard. And living simply is easy too. We're all comfortable, maybe too comfortable.

It's the obedience. That's the hard one." He paused. "And I've seen that as both a priest and a bishop."

The main question is:

>Do you really believe SSPX is insincere about believing we are in a state of emergency that allows for certain extraordinary measures for the sake of the Church?

If done outside of obedience, then yes, because these issues pertain directly to the authority of the Church at large, an authority they've decided to shrug off.

If July 1st comes and they do what they say they're going to do, it will force the issue, and we are likely to see paperwork and/or declarations from Rome. And it will have come with multiple warnings, all of which will be shrugged off.

I like this tweet from a member of SSPX as a summation of the problem: https://nitter.net/CullumSmith/status/2054559874692833362#m

For my part, I am still a fan of the biological solution. It may take a hundred years, but things will get back on track, and the traditional forms will be all we have left to pull from. In the meantime: we stay with the Church, for there is nowhere else to go.

(Oh, and this might be helpful: I agree more than disagree with the majority of SSPX's claims. The difference is that I'm still in a place where I can hopefully, in my own small way, move things forward in a positive direction. The FSSP is still in, fighting the good fight. But SSPX? DQ'd themselves on the self-own.)

It depends. There are ways to disagree. There are ways to move in other directions. Formally, though, if the pope demands obedience of an individual or group, including censure and/or excommunication (which was at play at one point for the SSPX, as well as the now-reconciled FSSP branch)... you do what the pope says.

Mentally, I always go back to St. Teresa of Avila: "St. Teresa knew in her heart that the visions were truly from Christ, yet out of obedience she performed the gesture when the Lord next appeared [context: her confessor had told her to make a rude "fig" gesture to the apparition of Christ, the equivalent of flicking Jesus off, because he believed her visions to be from the Evil One.] She did so with great interior distress and while silently apologizing to Jesus. Far from being offended, Christ reassured her and praised her obedience, telling her (in essence) that she had done the right thing by obeying her confessor."

Even though the confessor was wrong.

Or Msgr. Rosetti, just this week, getting ousted as exorcist of the Archdiocese of Washington for speculating openly as to whether "aliens" might in fact be demonic representations. ++McElroy is clearly acting unjustly. But Msgr. Rosetti's response:

“I believe it is of the utmost importance to be obedient to the Church and I will continue to endeavor to subject all that I do and the Center to be thus obedient,” he said in his response.

“I will continue to encourage all to do so as well,” the priest said. Referring to a symbol of unity with the Catholic Church, he added, “As I often say: ‘Stay in the Boat!’, that is, stay in the barque of Peter, it will lead you safely home.”

SSPX is out of the boat. And while I don't wish them ill, it won't surprise me when they drown.

My original comment boils down to this: even if things were fixed -- even if every reform possible were made -- SSPX would still remain on the outskirts, by their own choice.

The alternative -- the productive way to stay in the fight -- is through FSSP. The Fraternity is the remedy to the SSPX: it returned inside, to fight inside. When one removes themselves from ordinary communion as SSPX has, one goes impotent to work for the change that really needs to happen. Now, you're a non-issue on the fringes.

Sticking up to Peter is great. Breaking away from him because you disagree? Not so much.

"To be offended" is to touch upon some sort of insecurity in the other; the impetus used to fall upon the individual offended, not the person who "triggered" offense. Deal with your own insecurities.