Fellay et al. also talk of having war erupt WITHIN the Church once there is a universal indult. My bishop, Thomas Doran of Rockford, a member of the Signatura, has not only said the Tridentine Mass at St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford but also conferred Tridentine Confirmation and generally allowed his priests, without further permission to say the Tridentine Mass in appropriate venues. We have not only the Oratory but also a weekly Mass at St. Patrick's parish which I attend. Let Fellay try to boss Doran around or try to make "war" erupt in this diocese over forms of the Mass and there will be a war in this diocese and the faux "traditionalists" who reject papal authority will not win. They will have picked on the wrong Irishman and one with more authority than they will ever have.
We would likely have had our Mass back universally long ago were it not for the evil effrontery of the schism that dares claim responsibility for the limited progress to date while rejecting any actual authority that excommunicates them, declares them in schism, disciplines them or, indeed, disagrees with them. One pope at a time and Fellay is not him.
SSPX dares propose to "negotiate" its return to the Church after calling John Paul the Great an "antichrist." Unavoce has always had a soft spot for the schismatics. The late Michael Davies's trilogy on the Mass was another key factor in nearly driving me from the Catholic Church until it became clear that he had one story for Catholics and another for the schismatics.
The schism has regularly published the letter from Monsignor Perle, dishonestly redacted to leave out the antischismatic parts. Bornacatholic has published the full version at #73 above. Now, the schismatics either refuse to accept the authority of the Church (as in unconditional obedience) or it does not. You concede that such a refusal triggers excommunication. If anything is abundantly clear as to the unrepentant SSPX adherents, it is their rejection of the authority of the Holy Father. Yet, you contradict yourself by leaning on bureaucratic expressions (is your copy very possibly dishonestly redacted as is the schismatic habit with Monsignor Perle's letter?) which apparently tell you what John Paul the Great MEANT to say when he ruled precisely the opposite. The bureaucrats lack the authority to overrule popes. Unless these letters bear the signatures of either John Paul the Great or Benedict XVI and are not redacted, what possible authority may they have to contradict John Paul the Great's Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (the Motu Proprio not the bureaucracy)?
To date, the Church has never defined what it means to be "a formal adherent," and Msgr. Perl said that when the Ecclesia Dei Commission issues letters answering questions from laymen, while their contents of course are not infallible, they can be adhered to with moral certainty. That is good enough for me.
Are some laymen SSPX "adherents"? I suppose if they reject the authority of the Pope and the Church and refuse to receive sacraments anywhere else, even indult or FSSP parishes and reject the validity of the Novus Ordo, per se, then they might be. But to date, again, the Church has never defined what an "adherent" is, therefore, the point is quite moot.
I am well familiar with Bishop Doran and the diocese of Rockford and his policies with the TLM and Catholicism. It is a pearl. Just like Archbishop Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz, whom I have previously interviewed for Wanderer stories.
Good for you and the people of Rockford. The SSPX goes to places where the laity ask them to come. This usually is because the bishop of the diocese has not been "wide and generous" with the indult. There would be little reason for the SSPX to situate itself in Rockford, Illinois.
John Paul the Great... That is funny. I never said, by the way, that the Ecclesia Dei Commission letters "overturned" nor "contradicted" the ED letter, now did I? Nope. Certainly did not.
My main point which you intentionally miss is that the path toward reconciliation has begun and we are getting close. This is obvious in Bishop Fellay's remarks as well as those of the Holy See. Again, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is the primary papal document, but other than the bishops, it acknowledges the excommunications of no one else. Cardinal Hoyos has since repeatedly said that the SSPX is not a formal schism, and I'm quite certain he would not say that repeatedly in public interviews without the consent of the current Pope. He is using VAtican II ecclesiology and has said they lack a more perfect communion.