“If they were always Catholic, what did they “rejoin”?”
The Church, when they left their Lefebrist parish, and regularized things with the bishop. As I said, they were unaware of the distinction. When they were made aware of the distiction, they left.
You can leave without leaving, many find themselves outside, while still remaining Catholic, Narses. That is why people state they are Catholic and in good standing. Both are important.
This is why I state that they were always Catholic, because they were never in wilfull disobedience to His Holiness.
“You have no standing to make such a decision. You are arrogating the duties of the Vatican. Why?”
What decision am I making? I am simply stating my opinion of the affairs as they stand. It is up to the Pope to decide what to do, if anything about this letter. I believe they are not ready, but I’m not going to be the one to state that they should not keep working towards the ultimate goal.
Far from it. I’m stating that their reluctance is, at present, evidence that they are not ready. That can and will change over time.
As for being protestant, fair enough. I was what I was. But the difference here is that I accept the Second Vatican council, warts and all. :) If an outright former heretic can do this then so can the Lefebrvists.
What new Dogma has the Pope said Vatican II promulgated?
But the reality is much more complex. The documents of the Second Vatican Council are numerous and, unfortunately, comparatively vague, compared with those of prior councils.
That is where the problem comes in. When Dignitatis Humanae calls for religious freedom, to what degree is a moral right implied (rather than a legal right, which still raises questions about the relationship of the Church to the state)? Furthermore, to the degree that it contradicts previous Church teaching, which is the correct view? That which came before, or the new teaching? And what of the contradiction? Does that weaken or even nullify the validity of the Church?
Some issues are not even directly connected to Vatican II. For instance, can doctrine "develop" to come to mean precisely the opposite of what was once taught? That is what seems to be happening on the death penalty.
If it were only about restoring the Mass, SSPX would probably already be in full communion. But there are much bigger fish to fry.
I don't have the answers. I'm just a regular Catholic who generally assists at the Ordinary Form. But, I recognize that the SSPX has raised a number of legitimate issues, which must be resolved, whether or not they are ultimately reconciled with Rome.
Incidentally, the SSPX is not "schismatic," at least according to Cardinal Castrillion, the previous president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.