And before anyone protests that the SSPX doesn't intend to split from Rome--that's exactly what Luther insisted he did not intend--even as he did it. He only wanted to correct the bad portion of the Church--for him, the entire papal/episcopal Church; for the SSPX, the infected Vatican II papacy. But the reasoning used by both is remarkably similar. And Luther had absolutely no defense against Zwingli's rival interpretation of Scripture. He could pound the table and shout and tell Zwingli he was wrong, but he lacked any authority that Zwingli could be expected to recognize and submit to because Luther had claimed for himself the authority to sit in judgment on the pope. The pigeons he launched simply came home to roost.
Good post. Well put. Thanks.
"It's not at all ironic. Schism breeds further schism. It has always been that way. Once you set yourself up as "knowing better" than the buck-stops-here-authority, there's really nothing to prevent someone else seting himself up as "knowing better" than you. Notice the fissiparity of Protesantism--initially one, then within 4 years (1517-1521) two (Zwingli, Luther), then another 4 years 3 (Anabaptists in Zurich), then an explosion of Anabaptist sects, plus Calvin and the race was on."
Yes, schism does tend to breed schism. And with each successive schism, it becomes harder and harder to sort out the original grievances and bring those who have schismed back into the fold.
Which brings me back to my original point: I favor reunification with SSPX on very generous terms. This is a very recent schism and thus, in my view, probably one that is more likely to be resolved.
What a remarkably sensible post! Good for you!