It seems to me that if SSPX has a valid doctrinal stance to begin with, piusv makes is a very good point.
If the issues they raise are the sort of thing that can be settled by tinkering at the margins there wasn't much reason for all the sound and fury surrounding SSPX in the first place. If, as SSPX asserts and most who agree with them insist, there are major doctrinal points at issue then how can they reconcile without those issues being addressed after they've come this far ?
Modernism/Americanism is without a doubt the major strain of thought in many if not most places in this country but I don't see how that being the case frees individual Catholics to decide they can do more than find a parish where it doesn't hold sway or at least doesn't totally destroy the constant teaching of the Church.
I honestly don't see much difference between Luther during the few years he remained Catholic prior to being excommunicated and most of the SSPX folks I've run into. Overall they seem to have gone far beyond what Lefebvre had as his goals. Both Luther and Fellay rationalize away their own disobeying of every bit as much Church Doctrine as they insist those they oppose are disobeying.
IOW, there's either One True Church or there's not. I think someone has to be blind or on some sort of auto-pilot to not see the damage Americanism & Modernism have done to the Church in this country but the SSPX route ends at the same destination as the "True Catholic Church", "Palmarian Catholic Church", and "Pope Michael" crowd, without doing much good.
Where's the line between Luther and the folks who tell other Catholics not to go to Mass at all unless they go to one approved by them, even to the point of calling the NO Mass "an offense against God" ?
Working to halt and reverse the rot is one thing, burning the village to save it is another.
Didn't Pope Benedict XVI reaffirm that the Traditional Latin Mass has not be superseded? Then why isn't the battle within parishes to have Latin Mass along with or in place of NO rather than calling the NO "an offense against God"? A characterization that doesn't to hold water given that the Byzantine and others are accepted along with the Traditional Latin Mass ?
JMHo
Was Luther comparing the Church teaching at that time to previous Magisterium or his own brand of Christianity/interpretation of the Bible? Therein lies a HUGE difference between Luther and Archbishop Lefebrve and the SSPX.
And it also appears to me that your post focuses on the Latin Mass. The SSPX of old under ABL had much more to do with doctrine than the liturgy. The current SSPX? I’m not sure. It sure seems to me that there will be a reconciliation on the horizon and that will no be a good thing.
Doesn't change the fact that according to Church teaching, intention is a key constitutive element of sin. From the Catechism:
29 Q. What is required for a sin to be mortal? A. For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will.
30 Q. When is the matter to be considered grave? A. The matter is grave when the thing under examination is seriously contrary to the laws of God and His Church.
31 Q. When is there full advertence in sinning? A. Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil.
32 Q. When is perfect consent of the will verified in sinning? A. Perfect consent of the will is verified in sinning when we deliberately determine to do a thing although we know that thing to be sinful (http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm)
------------------
1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
------------
If, as SSPX asserts and most who agree with them insist, there are major doctrinal points at issue then how can they reconcile without those issues being addressed after they've come this far ?
AFAIK, their stance regarding the doctrinal conflicts between VII and previous Church teachings has not changed.
Where's the line between Luther and the folks who tell other Catholics not to go to Mass at all unless they go to one approved by them, even to the point of calling the NO Mass "an offense against God" ?
They are Catholic; Luther was an apostate. Regarding the Novus Ordo, they say that Catholics unaware of the deficiencies it contains (see Ottaviani Intervention - https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm) are not at fault for attending, but that those who are aware should not attend.
Then why isn't the battle within parishes to have Latin Mass along with or in place of NO
Good luck with that.