You again try to put words in mouth and thus tend to prove my suggestion that if anything was not publicised by the authors it was because of trouble-makers.



What I said was this: "I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise … More

You again try to put words in mouth and thus tend to prove my suggestion that if anything was not publicised by the authors it was because of trouble-makers.



What I said was this: "I have not said that SSPX do not want this information in the public domain. I don't know if they do or if they don't. I don't know if "the Vatican" (I presume you mean the Holy See?) does, either, although I surmise that they don't else they would have publicised it."



This is not at variance with what I earlier said which was a surmise, as must be obvious, and does, indeed, refer to "the Vatican" which is NOT co-terminous with "the Holy See" as I expressly said and you now pretend otherwise. This was in the context of not finding anything about the matter on the web site. It is clear that "the Vatican" did not want to publicise it themselves but not clear if they do or do not want others to do so, still less is it clear what the Holy See wants given that the Holy See is the source of the de facto "regularisation".



Doubtless the "counterfeit church" (as you term it), within the human bureaucracy, wanted the matter "kept quiet" because, I suspect, they disagree with what the Holy See has done. But what the Holy See itself wants is not clear. That the two seem to be at variance merely shows your error in seeking to elide them together.



Likewise the fact that SSPX themselves have not chosen to publicise the matter does not mean that they object to someone else putting the matter in the public domain. So, once again, there is no contradiction. I did not say - as you falsely claim - that SSPX wants the matter "kept quiet". I said they "have not chosen to publicise it" i.e. themselves. You again falsely elide the two.



You could have worked this out for yourself but you chose to interpret maliciously which again proves my point.



You seem less interested in the truth than in peddling your own agenda of historic Sedevacantism.



That also proves my point.



You press your agenda further when you say "surely your statement that other novus ordo bishops should 'take leaf out of his (Francis') book' and not be illiberal and intolerant towards the SSPX implies strongly that 'regularisation' is beneficial?"



Not so. It is a call for those bishops not to be illiberal or intolerant and that means regardless of "regularisation". One does not need "regularisation" in order to stop being illiberal or intolerant, particularly when one is claiming, simultaneously, to be liberal and tolerant.



You thus, again, unthinkingly try to put words in my mouth. But this, alas, is all too typical of the facile and sloppy thinking that characterises much historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II).



For the record, I do consider this de facto "regularisation" to be a good thing. It has obviated the need for what might have been difficult and unhelpful horse trading aimed at some likely unsatisfactory "joint statement" of the sort that proliferate these days but do little good and often serve only to confuse.



You seem to agree and yet, perversely, also seem to want to disagree. How helpful is that?



The rest of your reply is tendentious nonsense and I have already rebutted it.



It is well known that SSPX have been the principal opponent of historic Sedevacantism (i.e. denying the validity of earlier popes like Paul VI and John Paul II) whatever off the cuff remarks may have been made by Msgr de Castro Mayer or even Archbishop Lefebvre and which you attempt to wrest out of context.



You are whistling in the dark if you pretend otherwise.



When the Archbishop spoke of "Rome" he clearly meant the human bureaucracy, not the Church itself.



Indeed, you yourself, admit that the "counterfeit church" and the Catholic Church cannot be the same.



Of course it is perfectly possible for the same person to be truly Vicar of Christ and yet preside over a Church which has, within its bosom, the asp of a "counterfeit church". Our Lord Himself warned of this [ Matt 24.4-30 ].



Your very question betrays your confusion: "Naturally the 'counterfeit church' and the Catholic Church are not the same. But how can one man be leader of both?"



This very question implies that the Church over which the Vicar of Christ is spiritual head is also the "counterfeit church" and thus you self-demolish your own case.



If the courtiers of a king are conspiring to overthrow his kingdom, does that mean that the king is head of this "counterfeit kingdom"? Of course not. On the contrary, despite the fact that those same conspirators are his subjects, the king, qua king, is not the head of their conspiracy to instal a "counterfeit kingdom", even if he foolishly tolerates their treachery.



So much is obvious to anyone with common sense. So what is your problem that you cannot see something so obvious?



The issue here is not that "too many 'traditionalists' abandon Catholic teaching on the Papacy in their desperation to have a 'pope'" but rather that those who think there has been no pope since Pius XII (or even earlier) are thus confessing that Apostolic succession has disappeared and the Church has failed, contrary to the words of Christ. If anyone is abandoning Catholic teaching on the Papacy, it is they.



Historic Sedevacantism is a counsel of despair. I urge you to abandon it. I have every sympathy with, and warmly share, your concerns about the current state of things in the Church but to say that Apostolic succession has been lost is not the solution.



If you intend replying, please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth. If you wish me to clarify any view then simply ask, don't falsely try to put words in my mouth.