“Pope Francis is the pope, and when he speaks it’s magisterium,” said Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri in the boss’ defense.
Pierangelo Sequeri, Director of the Pontifical Theological Institute John Paul II, took a more condescending approach, saying, “The world of ecclesiastic chatter is inhabited by weak nobodies who act as if they are Pope Gregory the Great, Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura.”
In Seueri’s defense, he’s just modeling Bergoglio’s behavior.
In his recent interview with Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki published on 28 May, Francis was asked how he reacts to the accusation that he is a heretic. He replied, “With a sense of humor, my daughter.” In other words, he laughs it off.
He then said, apparently referring to the signatories of the Open Letter, “I also pray for them because they are wrong and poor people, some are manipulated. And who are those who signed…?”
In other words, who do they think they are? Typical behavior of a elitist dictator.
Of all of the responses that may not have been as expected, the one given by the Society of St. Pius X stands out as they chose to wring their collective hands over the dangers and the risks invited by the Open Letter. In a remarkably weak statement that borders on the effeminate, the SSPX dubbed the effort “a waste of time,” stating in part:
Given the radical way in which the successors of the apostles are called out, we have to question what results are expected from such an action. Is this way of doing things prudent? Does it have a chance to succeed?
Do the concerned parents of a drug addicted child refrain from condemning their offspring’s destructive behavior because doing so is unlikely to succeed, or do they continue offering firm correction simply because it is a service to the truth, an act of charity, and thus always and everywhere the right thing to do?
No need to answer.
If nothing else, the SSPX statement leaves little doubt as to the condition (or presence as the case may be) of the Society’s once considerable spine. And yet, they had the audacity to say, as if still in possession of a militant spirit:
Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight.
Staunch defenders of the SSPX – that is, those who cheerlead for the Society no matter what it does or fails to do – will be quick to point out that the statement correctly identifies the root cause of the Bergoglian menace; Vatican Council II:
We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis.
Indeed, it is true that one cannot definitively defeat the likes of Francis and his heresies with bullets provided mainly by the #FAKE conciliar “saints” – heresiarchs all. That said, when the likes of John Paul II offer a particular truth drawn from tradition – as he did in Familiaris Consortio– it is still tradition; that is, the antidote to Bergoglio’s heresy as proposed in Amoris Laetitia.
Even so, what the SSPX is suggesting is similar to urging one to put away the fire hose while an arsonist attempts to burn down the house because, after all, his pyromaniac parents are the real problem; never mind those innocents who are perishing in the meantime.
The SSPX statement concludes by claiming that they are simply following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre.
ThisWhat Would Marcel Do shtick is pathetic and it’s getting damned old. It’s also a grave disservice to the memory of Archbishop Lefebvre, a man who never faced anything even remotely like a supposed pope who literally teaches – in an allegedly papal decree no less – that God Himself wills adultery and has authored a Divine Law that some persons simply cannot keep.
In the face of this egregious affront to the Almighty, the SSPX – men who are building their franchise on an increasingly flimsy claim that they have exclusive rights to the designation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s faithful followers – can do no better than to absolve Bergoglio of heresy in Amoris Laetitia since he only intended to offer an “aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice” (See Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s extremely weak evaluation of the text, which even now stands as the Society’s “official position”).
Ultimately, the SSPX statement concludes that following the Archbishop means recognizing that “the Church of the future [has] the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.”
In other words, the Society of St. Pius X has, at least for the time being, tapped out of the ring.