I've been found these rumors interesting (some heartening, some absurd), but I haven't been inclined to post on them up until now. However, the volume of the buzz is increasing. Either the rumors are being "triangulated" from various independent sources, or the same rumor is getting repeated a LOT. It's exciting stuff. Here are some links from official news agencies, a "progressive" catholic blogger, a "neo-Catholic" or conservative Catholic blogger, an article (in French) about one traditional priest's proposal, and from the sedevacantist nut-jobs:
I forgot I wasn't registered with Bettnet when I started my comment to Domenico Bettinelli's post on this topic, which he ends with "I don’t know yet what the basis is for Williamson’s objection, but a quick guess would be that he wants a complete repudiation of Vatican II first. It isn’t going to happen. But issues of practicality mean little to those of the more radical bent. " So I'm posting it here: Dom can come get it if he wants it:
rankly, the folks in the "conservative" camp should leave the bombthrowing to the sedevacantists to the right of the SSPX, and let Rome and Econe work it out.
Quoth Jason: The Holy See isn't going to change
It isn't? We all, from far-out progressives to the dourest of traditionalists, and everyone in between, can agree the Holy See has changed rather substantially and rather quickly (by ecclesiastical standards) over the last thirty years. It's likely to keep a'changing at least through
And, to Dom, I'd say Tom "gets it"; perhaps you didn't. The point of his post is that something less than 100% of the culpability for the "Situation" lies with the SSPX.
There are lots of "conservative" Catholics (for want of a better but nondisparaging term) who should be praying for this reconciliation to happen, but who are so moved (nay, even blinded) by personal loyalty to Benedict's predecesor that they can't see the nuances of the Situation--the pastoral and administrative mistakes the bishops, the curia, and ultimately the Popes themselves with respect to the Situation. Rather than listen to the Society and draw them home, these folks make accusations and demands, and they attribute bad motives to men who may (or, history may prove, may not) have taken the wrong course of action, but did so in good faith and out of love for the Church.
The snide comment in your original post about Williamson requiring Rome to repudiate Vatican II before participating in the regularization is an illustration of that approach.
Maybe there are simply unanswered questions on the schema for the Society's continued criticism and debate about pastoral exhortations in certain Vatican II documents that are not easily reconciled with solemnly-defined doctrine? Maybe the whole "hesitation" report is just
rumor-mongering by true enemies of the Church among the sedevacantists? F