You continue to conflate two separate issues. We're talking now primarily about Vatican II, why do you return to the canonical status of the SSPX, especially as if I've never answered that before? You never attempted to respond to this,
"Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope.” SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted. Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough. In other words, Rome does not say the confession was invalid. Rome accepts the validity of the SSPX confession. Bishop Fellay asks, “So why is it said that our confessions are invalid if this is the way Rome deals with us in the case of these most serious matters?” So, if the priests are really suspended, as you think, how is it Rome acknowledges these absolutions, and even comments favorably on them?
It is a case of not accepting an unjust suppression, which theologians admit, (
St. Robert, "When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See") and asking respectfully for its removal, while maintaining internal union with the Pope, and a very real desire for visible and external communion, which manifests itself, among other things, in readiness to accept a new canonical structure. Why was the suspension invalid? This is from Catholic Culture,
In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass. The commission consisted of Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Alfons Cardinal Stickler and Jozef Cardinal Tomko and it was instructed to examine whether the New Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI abrogated the Old Rite, and whether a bishop can prohibit his priests from celebrating the Old Mass. The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V. So, all priests always had the right to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, and this injustice was finally corrected only after Summorum Pontificuм, and even then not fully. So, this is a separate issue, and since the injustice is now corrected, the SSPX is ready to accept the external removal of the unjust sentence as soon as the Roman authorities are willing to grant it. There is no question of your false accusation, which is refusing communion to the Pope. The Society was unjustly persecuted, but does not refuse communion with the Pope, which is impossible for any Catholic to do.
And let's drop the ridiculous accusation of schism. If sedevacantism is true, it is impossible to be in schism from a non-existent authority. And if it isn't, your objective state is much worse than ours, no matter your subjective conclusions, especially because no one has the right to drop the name of the one recognized as Pope by the Church by his own private judgment before the judgment of the Church.
I agree with Bishop Fellay's analysis, many years ago, that about 95% of Vatican II is only repeating past Magisterial teaching, whereas the Church's teaching was clear and explicit, Vatican II is ambiguous and unclear in talking about even doctrines like the Papacy, clouding it with a novel idea of "collegiality", which was only partially corrected in the Explantory Note. The major criticisms of the Council and the areas in which corrections are necessary are in the area of religious liberty and ecuмenism. These are mostly pastoral matters, and here the major errors are the failure to proclaim the Kingship of Christ, the duty of all states to be Catholic, that liberty in the strict sense can only exist for the adherents of the true religion, that the only true union of all Christians can be achieved by the return of the dissidents to the true Church of Christ, etc as was traditionally taught. I said error cannot be precluded a priori, because we are not talking about an infallible text, which gives that prior guarantee, yet you continue to misrepresent what I said, preferring to erect a strawman of your own making. Infallible safety, as applied to Vatican II, does not preclude a criticism and correction of some aspects of the Conciliar texts, and that's all that's relevant vis-a-vis Vatican II.
What if the SSPX had never been persecuted, Ladislaus, you know the Society was legitimately erected with a canonical structure. If the Roman authorities had acknowledged the right to offer the true Mass exclusively, which they were often close to acknowledging, and not trying to exaggerate the authority of the Council, which they sometimes tended to do, and the SSPX had always remained in "full communion" with Rome, would you still criticize them as you do above? If you say no, in that case, all you are saying is, the SSPX should get a canonical structure as soon as possible, that's all. What about this kind of criticism of Vatican II, by Gherardhini, de Mattei, Amerio and others? Is it acceptable or not acceptable according to you?
http://www.dici.org/en/docuмents/petition-to-pope-benedict-xvi-for-a-more-in-depth-examination-of-the-second-ecuмenical-vatican-council/