Have you grown frustrated with the fact that, since the 1960s, the traditional Catholic faith has been very difficult to make clear to liberals that their positions are at odds with the long-standing Tradition of the Church? This is because they are not stupid. They are clever as can be. Notice when Amoris Laetitia hit the public, there has since been all sorts of intellectual defenses as to how it just makes it in, even by a millimeter, to the field goal of Catholic orthodoxy? Notice how when the Universal Catechism paragraph 2267 was revised by Pope Francis, the Catholic Answers kitchen was able to cook up a quick and easy explanation as to how it just falls within, albeit with some difficult explanation and esoteric distinctions, the orange cones of orthodoxy?
What to make of this?
What we have today is (1) an asserted continuity with a (2) practical dissolution of the acclaimed continuity. I don’t wish to be so explicit, but it is akin to the masterminds who could rob from an international bank in a way that all the means are technically legal. They work the system, abide by all the legal strictures, never cross paths with a technically illegal action, and then leave with $400,000,000 to be deposited into banks in the Cayman Islands.
I am only here to say that this sort of crime may not be the prelates of the Church endorsing formal heresy, but gross acts of immorality in the realm of prudence for the sake of their god (i.e. their belly, or what have you). I say that formal heresy is not being committed for 2 reasons. For one, these liberal masterminds show a tremendous amount of awareness of the bull-dogmatic boundaries of dogmatic Catholic tradition, and work around it like grease on roller coaster tracks. This shows that they know their boundaries, and work slavishly hard to abide by their constitutions, regardless of how ambiguous they end up being. Secondly, the know that an outright denial of the dogmatic Catholic tradition would bring in far too much turmoil from the traditionalists.
The other possibility is that these persons are possessed of a tremendous lack of wisdom and prudence. In that case, culpability may be lesser than the example I’m given. I’d like to give the best benefit of doubt, and so, particularly with the current Pope, I think his issue lies more on the fact that he wants to stretch the unchangeable boundaries to consider the complex circumstances (I’d like to go further, but I’m obliged to keep my place).
On the relevant matter of the Assisi Prayer meetings in 1986, I say the following. None of the bishops under St John Paul II (who I don’t wish to characterize as a liberal mastermind) had the fortitude to pull something like what C’ple 553 did to Vigilius, and thus the current state of Catholicism suffers from both a Papalist and a Conciliarist decay. Not even the old Conciliarists have a blue-print of reform for orthodoxy, since the consensus of the current Episcopate is near heretical. I sense that some Catholics, out of fear for the Papal centralism in the deviant Bergoglio, are wanting to shift over the Conciliarist principles. However, we don’t want that just as much as we don’t want Bergoglio, for the reasons I’ve stated.
There is, of course, Sede-Vacantism. But I’d have to say that I would first consider the Protestant narrative before I venture that way.