As we all know and experience in politics, liberals are some of the most dogmatic ideologues around and will hold an inquisition if one doesn't buy into their liberal agenda.
The same is true of progressives in the Catholic Church. They strive to implement not only the documents of Vatican II, but also its false "spirit" in the most pre-Vatican II dogmatic way. They elevate to dogma that which is only pastoral. It is the same spirit but at the opposite spectrum that leads traditional Catholics to turn limbo (a pastoral solution to a difficult subject about where unbaptized babies go when they die--limbo which is a nice place compared to hell, since the unbaptized can't go to heaven) into a rigid doctrine or worse yet, dogma. It is a pastoral theology.
I read a piece from Crux this morning highlighting the unshocking news that in the ranks of those in the SSPX are those who have sexually abused children and an apparent cover-up by the SSPX. You can read the horrible stuff here at Crux. But Crux presents this as though the SSPX are the only ones who have this issue because they are so dogmatically traditional, when we know that the full communion of the Catholic Church has an abysmal track record on the same subject and with quite liberal bishops who exacerbated the problem from which there seems to be no relief from the damage done.
But what got my attention in that Crux article about the SSPX was this:
Since its inception in 1970, the SSPX has been a lightning rod in the life of the Catholic Church. It’s seen in a favorable light by some Catholics who harbor reservations about the liberalizing reforms unleashed by Vatican II (1962-65), but as retrograde and dangerous by others who object to its hard-line positions on matters such as ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, religious freedom, and liturgical reform.
Some have also accused the SSPX of turning a blind eye to prejudices the Church has made strenuous efforts in recent decades to combat, including anti-Semitism.
I would think that there are just as many if not more anti-Semites in the full communion of the Catholic Church as there are in the SSPX and in the south a goodly number of racists, not to mention those who are adulterers who avail themselves to Holy Communion each and every time they attend Mass even if that attendance is only two or three times a year. But what the heck, the God of mercy sees Holy Communion as a charm that will heal the sin-sick soul in a magical, miraculous way. Our Lord is not a prize for the virtuous but medicine for the anti-Semite, the racists and pedophiles to include those despicable priests who commit these crimes and the bishops who turn a blind eye. What is important is that they would like to change but circumstances prevent it.
But even worse for the progressives is that the SSPX or even rank and file full communion Catholics don't buy that Vatican II's pastoral initiatives with ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, religious freedom and liturgical reform are set in stone, or even doctrine much less than dogma. In fact these pastoral initiatives have a shorter lifespan in the tradition of the Church than that other pastoral theology: Limbo for which one can actually make a good case!
And then we have this wit and wisdom from an infamous and very disappointing liturgical blog that is as narrow-minded as anything I've seen from the SSPX and in fact its liberality is put forth in the most pre-Vatican II dogmatic and authoritarian way possible:
The rest of the Church accepts Vatican II and accepts what Pope Paul VI said repeatedly and very strongly: the reformed Mass of 1969 is faithful to Vatican II. You’re free to hold your idiosyncratic opinion, but it’s not persuasive to most other people.
The Mass of Paul VI is not set in stone and of course it’s reformable. But future reforms would deepen what happened in 1969 and carry its trajectory further. I suppose some things could be scaled back and some ‘traditional’ elements giver greater emphasis in a future reform – but within the liturgical understanding of V2 and 1969, not in opposition to it. All this is distinct from your desire to undo much of 1969, interpret V2 very selectively (and strangely), and in fact undo much of that the Council fathers called for. You cite a few cherry-picked phrases of V2 to argue against 1969, but it’s obvious that you don’t really accept V2 and your starting point is preconciliar.
Good [luck] with your minority agenda. But in my judgment: Not. Going. To. Happen.
Enough on this topic! It’s all been said here many, many times... Please don’t bring up this agenda over and over at Pray Tell...
In my humble opinion, let's discuss limbo, it has more going for it than the wit and wisdom of progressives with their infallibly presented authoritarian dogmatic ideologies.
Except, if you’ve read up on the evolutions and reforms of the calendar throughout history and especially in the 20th century, you’ll know that this would be highly displeasing to lots of people who accept the post-V2 liturgical reforms. There are only two octaves now, and for a reason that is compelling to many or most of us. And “external solemnity,” what’s that? It’s not in the rite as reformed.