“Because the abuse came after the Council.”
I don’t know why I can’t let this go but I had more time to think on the way to and from Catechism.
I don’t think anyone but the most liberal Catholic would argue that there weren’t abuses. But there were abuses in the Church when Martin Luther decided that he was the one to fix them and outside of the Church to boot.
He told them what he thought needed to be addressed and when they didn’t listen to him immediately, he had the pride and arrogance to think that he could fix it himself and I’m sure he justified every move he made to himself. He just wanted a holy church and priesthood, he had a lofty goal but he thought he could fix it instead of waiting on the Holy Spirit and believing the promise of Christ. Martin Luther’s pride made him believe that he was doing the right thing.
No doubt, God can take any schism and use it for His plan, and good can come out of this schism if they are willing to return to the Body of the Church, submit themselves to their bishops and the pope. Is that happening yet? Do you perceive that it will happen? I still have my doubts because pride is a strong emotion and unless the Holy Spirit is very strong and they are inclined to listen, I don’t see a lot of these congregations returning to the fold. I hope I’m wrong. But history is, unfortunately, on my side.
I was formerly Russian Orthodox, which I think gives me a special insight in both how conservation of liturgy works, and how schisms work. The schism of 1054 was a pattern of the SSPX controversy more nearly so than the Reformation, except that this time through, both sides knew what to avoid.
The similarity with Protestantism is real, but it is limited to the disobedience factor. At the same time, much in the fruit of Vatican II invited Protestantism in substance; I would name the conscious desacralization of the Liturgy and encouragement of vaguely understood freedom of conscience. The result was desecrated altars, faithless priests, and the full of itself laity that did not know and did not care to know the Catholic faith. Naturally, millions left the Church. That was a disaster of major proportions, against the background of which I am willing to forgive excessive formalism.
The similarity with the Eastern Orthodoxy is more substantial: like the Orthodox, SSPX understood that the liturgical form defines the substance and that small, seemingly inconsequential changes, like turning the priest to face the congregation at the Eucharistic Prayer have profound consequences. This is why it is not simply a matter of disobedient pride. You cannot fix such schisms with a doze of obedience: a desire to return to the orthodox (small "o") form must be present in Rome. The reform must be reformed first.
The reform of the reform -- the healing of the abuses of Vatican II -- is palpable in Pope Benedict's pontificate. It became possible for SSPX to return after two initiatives came from Rome: the meaning of "church" and especially the evasiveness of "subsistit in" language of Lumen Gentium was clarified in RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH, and the Motu Proprio was issued restoring the Latin Rite. Ther conditions became right for the return of the SSPX.
Does it mean everyone at SSPX is happy? - No. Through the period of the Schism SSPX has accumulated a crew of followers that only care for the ornamental Baroque, are sedevacantist, or otherwise have peculiar and prideful reasons for not coming back. The schism, however, is about to be healed and the SSPX core will return.
On a larger scale, and much slower, the conditions necessary for the healing of the Great Eastern Schism are becoming more apparent. Again, it is not to say that the Orthodox laity en masse is prepared for reunification, -- they are not, but some Orthodox bishops are working toward it, and all by now are on notice that their stated desire to restore unity will be tested soon. In fact, just as the Great Eastern schism was a model for SSPX separation, so will the regularization of the SSPX be a model for the reunification with the East.
Both schisms served a divine purpose. SSPX forced the Church to reexamine and clarify Vatican II, and it preserved a cadre of priests ready to center the Church on the liturgy. The Eastern Orthodoxy -- now that it is a fact of life also in the West -- is a powerful witness against the so-called Reformation, because it validates the Catholic, hierarchical, liturgical character of the Early Church. Against the corrupting influence of modernity, both SSPX and the Easter Orthodox Churches were better off preserving the Tradition on their own for a while.
We live in very interestig times.