Caminus believes that the VII Council and the post-VII Popes have used ambiguity to delude the masses but without ever teaching explicit heresies.
Okay, let's assume hypothetically that's true, although it's not what I believe.
What is the point of separating from a Church that is still the true Church because of some errors and/or ambiguity? If you are wise to the ambiguity, then you can just continue to go to your local parish church and tune it out.
I am getting prepared to go back to sedevacantist chapel now that I'm thinking that NFP may be an error and not a heresy. I am going to sit there in the same room as a priest and a bunch of faithful who believe in what I think ( rightly or wrongly ) is a scandalous doctrine. I'm not sure that NFP is an error, but simply that it "may be" an error -- that it has the benefit of the doubt -- is enough to bring me back, since I'm only obligated to avoid Mass if someone is such an obvious heretic that they couldn't be excused in a court of law. I once thought NFP was an obvious heresy.
You people in SSPX are more extremist than I am. You have broken away from what you consider to be the true Catholic Church based on teachings that you don't think are heresies, and that may not even be errors, but are mere ambiguities! When you think about it, my little ironic thesis that you are actually extremists is not so tongue-in-cheek as it might appear.
Yes, I realize that not everyone in SSPX shares Caminus' outlook. But all of you, by the very nature of your position, do tend to protect VII from charges of heresy, for the obvious reason that, if you knew they had taught heresy, you would have to be sedevacantist, which for some reason you find a daunting or intimidating prospect. One would think you'd be glad to escape from this "ambiguous" Judaizing safehouse of pedophiles.
Because of the scandals that are now at critical mass, on Angelqueen the SSPX faction find themselves actually defending the "Pope" against the secular media. Behold the fruits of the SSPX position, defending the indefensible in the name of a legalism ( that VII didn't teach heresies, which is not even true, and the post-VII Popes have also taught heresies such as the Joint Declaration on Justification ).
Today [ I wrote this on Good Friday 2010 -- R76 ] you have Ratzinger's in-house preacher comparing the beleaguered scandal-ridden so-called Catholic Church to the poor, persecuted Jews, and it didn't take long for the Jews to leap in and say "Don't compare us to these freaks!" Oh yes, make no mistake, this was a new crucifixion planned for Good Friday, Jews shining their haloes, batting their eyelashes and saying "DON'T COMPARE US TO CATHOLICS!" Free Barabbas! Dark is light and light is dark; up is down and down is up. Many confused people in today's world would rather be Jewish than Catholic, looking at this morass, and all of you who are throwing your weight behind this fake Church with its fake Pope, well, I won't say you're responsible for their lack of discernment, their inability to separate the truth of Christ and His Church from its members, but I will say that I don't envy your position, having to defend the indefensible.
Converts will dwindle out into near-nothingness if this continues, vocations will disappear, if they haven't already, "monasteries" and "convents" full of pro-abortion feminist witches will even disappear. What sinking Titanic will SSPX hook their dinghy to then? Will they be in the wasteland saying "The Pope is still Pope! The Emperor has a shiny new wardrobe!"
I IMPLORE THE MEMBERS OF THE SSPX TO SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL:[/color]
If VII taught heresies -- be sedevacantist
If it taught errors -- you should still be a sedevacantist because no Council convoked by a true Pope can teach errors
But by your own logic -- you should remain with the Vatican II Church.
Are you trying to avoid other Catholics, to separate from them, because they believe in ambiguities or errors? Then expect more charges of "schism." I know no one in SSPX has clear schismatic intent, but actually a schismatic attitude is part and parcel of your very position. It comes with the territory. If you really look honestly at this post, you will see what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to be inflammatory and am simply making an observation.
I'll just say that your stance is illogical. No matter how you look at it, there is no reason for the SSPX now that VII provides Latin Masses ( since SSPX at its best was really all about the Mass, keeping the Tridentine Rite alive ). It literally has no purpose to exist anymore except to make the Latin Mass more available depending on where you live.
I know you will say that its purpose is to negotiate with Rome, but you don't need to separate from other Catholics while that is being done. Besides, that is not a purpose, because you can't negotiate to change a teaching of the true Church -- the Church can't err on faith and morals and then be corrected later. Caminus really understands all this which is why he is very careful to say that VII only taught ambiguities. But that begs the question about why there is an SSPX at all.
Really, the purpose of the SSPX is to keep the traditionalists from revolting wholescale against Rome, to keep them sweet and docile while VII does some more damage. The crooks are buying time for themselves, time that I think we all know is just about over.