The Holy Father has bent over backwards, with olive branch after olive branch offered to the SSPX to regularize them.
They don't want to be regularized. They want to suppress the Novus Ordo (just read their posts on this forum) and force the Church to disavow Vatican II's Decrees on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty.
Anybody with any sense knows the Pope is not going to fold on either of those.
Many seeking people are being led into schism and sedevacantism by the integrists.
No, Madrid's work is a perfect counterbalance to The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, and other extremist publications.
"The Holy Father has bent over backwards, with olive branch after olive branch offered to the SSPX to regularize them."
He has certainly made some major moves considering the forces within the Vatican and the liberal European and American bishops' conferences which oppose him. All the more reason for not stirring the s**t any further!
"They want to suppress the Novus Ordo (just read their posts on this forum) and force the Church to disavow Vatican II's Decrees on Ecumenism and Religious Liberty."
There are many in the N.O. clergy - including Cardinals and Archbishops - who want exactly the same. Heck, Archbishop John Foley and Cardinal Pell are even spearheading a counter attack against Gaudium et Spes.
"Many seeking people are being led into schism and sedevacantism by the integrists"
Far many more are being led into de facto schism and heresy by bishops like my own and the majority of the US hierarchy. Madrid would help far more souls if he turned his guns on them.
As for sedevacantism, the See might as well be vacant for all the obedience that most bishops give it these days - not that the SSPX supports sedevacantism anyway.
"The Holy Father has bent over backwards, with olive branch after olive branch offered to the SSPX to regularize them."
False. Every syllable. The Pope falsely accused the SSPX of schism and ignored its arguments out of hand--which were based on a state of emergency in the Church and a desire to protect the ancient Mass from destruction by modernists. He gave no evidence for his motu proprio--and so wrongly and unjustly accused these good priests of something they had not done--denied his papacy. He based this solely on their disobedience--although disobedience per se was not a schismatic act. In other words, he abused his authority.
The disobedience of the SSPX was principled and was based on what the good fathers and their Archbishop believed is always obligatory for Catholics. To have conceded to the Pope's command would have meant having been complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition as they had always understood it and as it had been perennially taught by preconciliar popes and councils--in other words, by Tradition itself. It would have inflicted great harm to the Church and to the souls of the faithful.
It is this conflict between Tradition and the papacy which is at the heart of the crisis. If the Pope believes himself to be lord of Catholic Tradition itself, then he must be disobeyed when he commands what is counter to that Tradition. No man, not even the Pope, is superior to that which has been handed-down to us from the apostles. Even the Pope is the servant of Tradition. But the Pope acts as if his novelties have the force and legitimacy of Tradition. They do not. Unless these teachings and actions are in accord with the Magisterium of the Church which he has received, they are not binding--and should be opposed if they conflict with doctrines already clearly defined.
This is the Pope's dilemma. Since he can't legitimately argue his case, he is silent about what he does and simply pushes his agenda through what is called a "philosophy of practice." He establishes facts on the ground--however much they may be in conflict with official doctrines. And since the Pope refuses to even discuss the situation, or any other fundamental principle of disagreement with the SSPX, it is ludicrous to imagine it is the SSPX priests who are at fault. The Society is obliged in conscience to follow the teachings of the Magisterium handed-down by popes and councils for two thousand years--not the teachings or practices of a pope out of sync with his predecessors.
So please tell me, what do you think of this co-author? Do you approve of abortion his wife had? Do you think his past (the report of his flirtation with Satanism, Lord I hope this is not true) but do you think this is a relevant fact when making a decision to buy the book or not? Is this the best the Roman Catholic Church has to offer, is there no good men to make the case for the RCC against the critics?