TIA responds:
E.J.W.,
We are not sede-vacantist. You may read our answers to similar questions here.
The proof that FSSP compromised is indirect but a quite convincing one. The Ecclesia Dei Commission of the Vatican demands from any traditionalist priest or institution that asks for permission to say the traditional Mass according to the 1962 Missal the following compromises:
- To not publicly criticize the Pope;
- To not publicly criticize Vatican II;
- To not publicly criticize the Novus Ordo Mass;
- To submit to the local Bishop.
The Commission is open to receive objections on these points, but they need to be addressed in private, never in public. The Commission answers each particular case. The answers, however, are all in favor of Vatican II, the New Mass and the conciliar reforms in the Church. So, there is no possibility to have a return process from the Conciliar Revolution. This "dialogue" is a one-way road.
Now then, members of the FSSP certainly act as if the heads of their organization would have signed the four points demanded by the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They never do anything that is opposed to those four points. Therefore, it is an obvious de facto acceptance, even though we don’t have a photocopy of a document with their signatures.
To these four points of compromise, Pope Benedict XVI in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum added another demand: that those who want to say the “Old Rite Mass” must also make clear that they do not have any objection to the “New Rite Mass.” This last requirement has normally been understood as a requisite that the candidate saying the “Old Rite” must be willing, if asked, to say the “New Rite” at times in order to prove that he has no objection to the latter
This last demand is the only point that seems to be open to discussion. We do not know whether every priest of the FSSP has had to say a Novus Ordo Mass to show he has no objection against it, or only some of them have done so.
Now, when we argue showing that there is a de facto compromise, the maneuver used by the members of the FSSP is to divert the attention of the inquirer by saying: “These people are sede-vacantist. Don't listen to what they say.” This tactic is not so different from throwing sand in one’s eyes; it is far from being fair.
Cordially,
TIA correspondence desk
