[ultima ratio]

There is no fire? Why then did Paul VI himself describe the situation of the Church following Vatican II as a process of "auto-demolition." Why then did he worry that "the smoke of Satan" had entered the sancturary? Where have all these scandals come from? Why is there a vocations crisis, a seminary crisis, a catechesis crisis, a liturgical crisis, a church attendance crisis? Is everybody but the Pope hallucinating? And just to extend the analogy a bit--if the owner of the house says there was no emergency, but if he's in the backyard writing poetry while his house is on fire and his children are screaming at the top of their lungs--is his testimony trustworthy? Even if he's the chief of police?

But let's say you're right for a moment. Let's say the Pope was absolutely correct, that there was no emergency. But suppose the law also said if you break and enter because you sincerely believed there was an emergency, and that if this was the case, whether you were actually right or not, you would not be guilty of any crime-- how then could you afterwards be justly accused of any crime? In effect, this is exactly what happened with the SSPX. The Pope ignored the caveat Canon Law itself provided Archbishop Lefebvre. The Pope couldn't pretend canon 1323 didn't exist--it certainly did; nor could he revise the law itself after the fact--his own Canon Law prohibits such an injustice. So he did what he does frequently, especially when he can't answer his critics reasonably--he simply ignored the canon and rejected out of hand the Archbishop's sincere concern for the faith in a crisis. This was simply an act of injustice on the part of the Pope. No Vatican spin on earth can make it just.

And he compounded this with a false charge of schism besides. Yet a schism must actually exist for such a charge to have any validity. It cannot be unilaterally imposed or predicated on a supposition that disobedience of a papal command is in itself a denial of the papacy itself. Such an assumption violates logic--especially where the evidence shows that the SSPX was acting in defense of Catholic Tradition. Besides, many many times the Archbishop had publicly asserted that his struggle was based on his fear that there was an ongoing effort by Rome to destroy Traditional Catholicism, beginning with the elimination of the ancient Mass. This is all on the record. To imagine such opposition was based on hostility to the office of the pope is bizarre in its assumption. There is simply no evidence that shows this at all.

[Dominick]

Why is there a vocations crisis, a seminary crisis, a catechesis crisis, a liturgical crisis, a church attendance crisis? Is everybody but the Pope hallucinating?

Why indeed. Well I can tell you it isn't because of the Novus Ordo Mass. People have been torn away from any semblance of universal truth. Anything goes in secular life, except holding to Faith. It isn't because we use the vernacular in Mass.

But suppose the law also said if you break and enter because you sincerely believed there was an emergency, and that if this was the case, whether you were actually right or not, you would not be guilty of any crime-- how then could you afterwards be justly accused of any crime?

As long as we are playing the intention game, perhaps Lefebvre had the intention of seizing the reins of the Church away from the Pope? Not actually, but by being able to dictate a "return" to the Tridentine Mass? Lets say the person breaking in took items and refused to return them, like the SSPX continues to claim the Church has lost it's sanctity? Even if there was a perceived emergency, a crime was still committed. How about at a burning house where the flames are rising you steal before the flames engulf the house and not return the items, that too is theft.

And he compounded this with a false charge of schism besides. Yet a schism must actually exist for such a charge to have any validity.

Once again the Pope picks the people who are in union with him, and he can Judge who is doing what he thinks is right, and is in Union with the Church. The Vatican II council did what it thought was needed to combat secularism, and save all of Catholicism. There is a Schism because the SSPX will not agree to generous and reasonable terms of agreement, like admitted the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and saying at least one Mass. They can even say it in Latin, because that is wholly permitted in that rite.