Leo XIV / Prevost Controversy

So, what this dispute or controversy really boils down to, even if not all the combatants in the arena are entirely aware of it themselves ... is that there are different paradigms or "hermeneutics" in play here regarding the nature of this crisis afflicting the Church and the very nature of the Conciliar Church.  It's not about the "mean" and "unchawitable" (Bishop Richard Williamson's satirical pronunciation) people vs. the "nithe" ones who want to "give him a chance" and the "give him the benefit of the doubt", etc. 

So, in the final analysis, either you believe the Conciliar Church is substantially the Catholic Church that has just veered off in recent decades toward a more liberal direction (and are hoping for a "course correction" back toward right now) or else there's a substantial rupture where this is not the same religion as what was there before the Council.    In the one paradigm, a series of "course corrections" of the current trajectory of the "Church" would suffice to remedy this problem. 

In the other paradigm, to extend the metaphor, if you're in the Conciliar Church at all, you're on the wrong boat entirely, and it's going inexorably over the falls (where Traditionalists have to man the lifeboats and get off the ship and head away from the falls) ... and where nothing short of a complete rollback of Vatican II, the New Mass, and the post-Conciliar "Magisterium" (i.e. a declaration of their nullity) will suffice to restore the Church.  If you believe the latter, then, it doesn't matter who they (s)elect ... were it even a Sarah, for instance.  They're all committed to this new Conciliar religion, as Leo XIV made clear right out of the gate.  None of this has a lick to do with being nithe or not nithe, etc.  I'll be writing up a more thorough analysis of this on my Substack page (hopefully ready soon).  It's really the same dispute that's been ongoing for decades among all the permutations of the different Traditionalist groups ... and is nothing new, and it has little to do with the sincerity, good (or bad) intentions of Prevost, whether or not you're mean, etc. ... but about one's perspective regarding the crisis.

Neo-SSPX (substantially Catholic, or "95% Catholic" per +Fellay) vs. the Resistance (substantial rupture).

Schneider (some corrections can be made) vs. +Vigano (substantially corrupt and needs to be discarded)

Before SSPX went "neo", the FSSP (substantially Catholic) vs. SSPX (substantially not Catholic).

Sedevacantists (substantially not Catholic, leading to the conclusion these aren't popes) vs. most branches of R&R (except the Resistance).

This has always been the underlying cause of the disputes among the various groups who self-identify as "Traditional Catholic".

We can pass over the implications of "sedeprivationism", where IF Leo XIV were to "convert" away from the Conciliar religion, he would at that time resume having formal papal authority (since that's a hypothetical implication and does not bear too much on the current state, as Leo has already declared his full commitment to Vatican II, to going "forward" -- Bergoglian codeword in contrast to "backwards" [=Tradition], and even his enthusiastic endorsement of Bergoglio's "masterful" interpretation of Vatican II.  So, someone who's even slightly conservative might, while endorsing Vatican II, quietly distance himself from Bergoglio's extreme Leftist turn by at least not fully endorsing it, and then gradually backing away over time even if not wanting to explicitly repudiate it.  But, as the editor of America magazine stated, Prevost is "one brain" with Bergoglio, and there's not a snowball's chance in the infernal regions that Bergoglio would have put Prevost into such a position of influence if he had a single Traditionalist bone in his body and were not 1000% in lockstep with Bergoglio and his agenda.

At this stage, not even taking sides, I'm laying out the logical parameters of the dispute regarding Leo.  Unfortunately, it's devolved into a dispute between those who claim we should be "nithe" and "give him a chance" and the "benefit of the doubt"...

Those taking the "we should be 'nithe' and 'give him a chance'" position in the Anglosphere appear to be either neo-trads who only went trad after Summorum Pontificuм, often these are self-identified "JP II Catholics", or they are palaeo-trads who have learned shockingly very little from taking that approach with Wojtyła, Ratizinger, and Bergoglio. Are they naive or have they simply wearied from battle fatigued? These palaeos tended to be Indulters 35 to 45 years ago, as far as I have seen. But one would think that experience and logic would inform their current reaction. 

From Sean Johson, replying to Lad's post above:

Yes, the counterfeit conciliar church represents a substantial break with the Catholic Church, and this is easily demonstrated: