It's an agreement without a signature. Everyone is friendly with everyone. If Rome calls for it and Menzingen cooperate this could come about. It is a silent way of reaching their objections. A rubber stamp approval is not technically needed to do this agreement with Rome.

An essential aspect of this "recognition of tolerance" would be that the Vatican to lift the suspension a divinis decreed against all the priests of the SSPX.

Quote from: untitled

An essential aspect of this "recognition of tolerance" would be that the Vatican to lift the suspension a divinis decreed against all the priests of the SSPX.

Once a badge of honor - now a dreaded pariah.

Within the prevailing Subjective vs. Objective mindset, I hate the word "tolerance".  I guess that makes me intolerant.  Words have meanings, so whenever someone begins to spout the word "tolerance" at me, I look back to the common meaning, not withstanding what St. Thomas might say or others more skilled in thought than myself.  

A typical definition of "tolerance"

tol·er·ance
ˈtäl(ə)rəns/
noun
noun: tolerance

    1.
    the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
    "the tolerance of corruption"
    synonyms:   acceptance, toleration;

Therefore, putting the word into its common definition and meaning, "tolerance" asks people to accept the opinions or behavior of others but not necessarily agree with those opinions.  

My problem with modern discussion of tolerance is this.  It presumes subjective truth, not objective.  It presumes your "opinion" has the same equal footing as truth as held by the Tradition of the Church, the Doctors of the Church, the teaching of the Saints.  Moreover, it presumes there is no real baseline for truth, but one's own conscience and sense of what truth is.

Tolerance is fine when it comes to discussing one's favorite color or make of automobile. ice cream, and especially in areas of racial acceptance.  In matters of faith, any discussion of "tolerance" comes from the pit of hell.  Religious liberty is all about this.  Tolerance means I agree that YOUR religion is valid for YOU if that best fits your belief system.  I will tolerate your version of faith, therefore, because out of charity, I must do so.  

In the event the SSPX agrees to any "tolerance" type of agreement, the Society will be subjectively accepting evil versus objective truth.  Personally, myself and my family will not follow that bus that heads towards the cliff to literal hell.  We individually are responsible for the future of our own souls.  There can be no tolerance of evil, period.  

Two Bishops: A Clash of Wills

(With thanks to Binx of Ignis Ardens)


The expulsion of Bishop Williamson by Bishop Fellay may be traced to a clash of wills. The cited disobedience (by both men) is nothing more than the manifestation of that clash. But to what are the two wills attached?

The answer to that question leads ultimately, I think, to two different visions of the Society’s mission in the world and in the Church. And the most recent manifestation of that difference finds expression in the rhetoric surrounding the negotiations with Rome.

Bishop Fellay claims that he did not seek an alliance with Rome but that Rome rather was the initiator. We must take him at his word, as we cannot read his secret desires nor any secret actions they may have inspired. What we can observe, however, is what he openly defends: a general receptivity to the Pope’s desire for a canonical regularization of the SSPX. Indeed, we have heard countless times from Bishop Fellay or from one of his appointees the argument that goes thus: if the Pope desires to recognize us and we are allowed to keep doing what we have always done, how can we resist? Or to put it another way, if we get offered the sweetheart of all traditionalist deals, we would be fools not to take it.

In response to this logic, those opposing Bishop Fellay (including Bishop Williamson at times) have often made what I would call a miscalculated counter-attack by arguing that Rome is not to be trusted. “Look at all the other traditionalist groups,” they say. “Look what happens to their so-called deals after they submit themselves to Roman authority.” True enough. Rome is not to be trusted, and that is worth noting in itself. But this approach to the argument glosses over a bigger problem because it implies that if somehow Rome could be made to hold up its end of the bargain, the sweetheart of all deals should indeed be accepted. But this is not so.

While it is likely true that Rome would renege on any deal (let alone one that would allow the SSPX to openly criticize the Council), this is not the primary reason to avoid such an arrangement. In fact, even if Rome were to muster up enough gentlemanly spirit to stick to its negotiated concessions—even then, a canonical regularization would be fundamentally uncatholic for several reasons:

1. The true priesthood and the true faith should not be subjugated—symbolically or otherwise—to an apostate hierarchy.

2. It is not Catholic for the Roman Church to have one kind of faith and practice for all the clergy and all the faithful in all the dioceses of the world, and a different kind of faith and practice for a special subgroup of Roman Catholics, spread also across the globe but untethered, as is their want, from the local diocesan bishops.

3. Likewise, it is not Catholic for the Society to accept Rome’s formal separation (by way of a special canonical structure) of tradition from the rest of the Church. Such indifferentism must always be resisted because it affirms implicitly the modernist principle of a multiplicity of faiths dependent only on the immanent spirituality and aesthetic preferences of the persons involved.

4. Acceptance of canonical regularization with hands-off governance from modernist Rome also betrays a contradictory and liberal spirit with regard to ecclesiastical obedience. It says, in effect, we would welcome the appearance of obedience (i.e. the canonical structure) so long as we are not made to actually follow anyone’s orders and are allowed instead to continue doing whatever we ourselves deem best, with essentially no restrictions (i.e. the sweetheart deal). In short, the reason to avoid a deal with Rome has nothing to do with the deal’s conditions nor whether Rome would honor them. It has everything to do with the nature of the entity on the other side of the bargaining table. Rome has built a New Order, a new system of faith and mass and sacrament. There is no proper place within that fantasy land for the real reality.

Of course, Bishop Fellay, being an excellent judge of his audiences, had to have been aware that some in his society, among both clerics and laymen, would instinctively detect and resist this idea of a practical deal without doctrinal agreement. And even if he did not know beforehand, he knew soon enough by way of Internet fora that this was the case.

In response, he offered several talking points with regard to the ongoing negotiations: 1) The Holy Father wants this. We must do it because he wishes it. To resist would be a kind of practical sedevacantism. 2) Rome is slowly (but surely) returning to tradition. From the inside, the Society may have an instrumental (maybe even glorious!) role in restoring the Church. 3) Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted this deal. 4) Canonical regularization would restore an old injustice. It is ours by right to be recognized as part of the Roman ecclesiastical structure. And 5) Some in the SSPX are in danger of making the Council into a caricature: in other words, it’s not quite as bad as the naysayers have made it out to be, and 95% of it is downright acceptable.

These talking points do not, of course, refute in any way the principled objections to a practical deal without doctrinal agreement, but they certainly are effective in allaying the fears of the more timid doubters, and they provide the unabashed supporters of this new course a small arsenal of rhetoric to use here and there as circuмstances warrant.

In the end, as we know, Rome did not even keep on the table the sweetheart deal touted initially by Menzingen, but it was abundantly clear that if they had done so, Bishop Fellay would have been agreeable. Pregnant in this reality is that Bishop Fellay’s vision of the Society’s mission includes a return, in some fashion, to the conciliar church. If not at this time, then at some future time, when Rome offers (and doesn’t withdraw) another sweetheart deal. Trying to put this vision in the best light, we might imagine that the bishop sees the Society affecting the universal Church like some kind of powerful curative medicine. Delusional though such a vision may be, it is less cynical, at least, than a number of alternative explanations for such receptivity to the offers of modernist Rome.

There are clearly a great many Society priests and faithful who have no trouble at all with Bishop Fellay’s vision. Whether they held such a view in the past matters not. They are quite willing to trust his leadership (and be inspired by his talking points) in the present. But there are plenty who resist as well, and chief among them is Bishop Williamson. For him, and for those who are drawn to him, the Society’s mission is not to be the divine catalyst for the resurrection of the Catholic Church but rather more humbly to form good, integral Catholic priests who will keep the faith during Rome’s absence from it. When Rome returns, the mission is over. Until that time, Rome’s interest in absorbing the Society into its vast amalgamation of religious experience is to be politely but firmly rebuffed.

So these two wills are at war. Bishop Fellay is open to, if not desirous of, canonical regularization without doctrinal agreement, provided that a few—three, to be exact—practical conditions are met. And Bishop Williamson is not. Each man has supporters, and some from each camp have suggested that the real reason for the expulsion is Bishop Williamson’s “h0Ɩ0cαųst” remarks of a few years ago. In some sense, this is probably true. That was, at least, the moment in time when the opposition of wills was first made public. And Newrome itself has made it clear that they will not allow dissent on this particular point, entrenched as they are in the socio-political norms of the New Order. Still, I have a hard time believing that the content of Bishop Williamson’s remarks is the source of Bishop Fellay’s terminative action. I cannot read his mind, but I suspect that even he has some private doubts about the official numbers. What he cannot abide, however, if he is to navigate the Society to an eventual agreement with Newrome, is the resolute opposition to his will in that endeavor, especially from such a lofty chair as that of a brother bishop. This obstacle has now been removed.

Ecclesia supplet will still remain in effect, which the FSSP denies.
And with respect to past sacraments, even if there were a juridical agreement, there would still be a sanation of marriages and confessions required as a separate act from Rome, since sacraments are not automatically sanated retroactively.