I always like reading when Brandon of Siris does his 'a whole bunch of fast undeveloped thoughts he's just putting out there' thing, so hey, I'll be doing that now and then. Call it one of my gimmicks, along with the Strawman fun.
So, on we go.
* The claim of 'you don't know what I think, don't act like you KNOW me' sounds like a good self-righteous response to probing criticism and questioning of one's motivations, but it's not a response which has aged well. Don't deploy this shit online when you're on an account with an extensive commenting history which lets anyone browse and reasonably piece together a good portion of your thoughts.
* With respect to Codgitator's rock and a dark place, my response is: the moment someone tells me that I have only two options, my natural instinct is to immediately check if they're right. I don't believe the only options for a faithful Catholic are suffering in silence or sedevacantism. To use an extreme example: the SSPX clearly doesn't believe that either. The fact is that the Pope is bound by past Popes and the deposit of faith, and the existence of shitty Popes - not saying that Francis is - is nothing new. This fast reply does no justice to Codg's long, deliberate posts, but I'll quickly say that the faithful Catholic has obedience to more than just the current Pope. They are likewise faithful to the Church and its teaching, and it seems to me that sometimes, that Church can trump the Pope.
* Being a Byzantine Catholic has made me somewhat skeptical of the idea that the Novus Ordo is uniquely responsible for the corruption and fall of the Church. We never had the NO, yet our churches have suffered as well, certainly in terms of the number of faithful, etc. Now, we're barely a sideshow to the Roman rite, but I can at least provide some first-hand experience on this front, and it tells me that whatever is going on, goes beyond the Novus Ordo.
* Pope Francis has been a bit more encouraging lately, talking frankly about the world's indifference to Christian martyrdom, and even warning about the threat of atheism in Europe. Good God - secularism as a bad thing? *Atheism* as a bad thing? Goodness.
* Is it wrong, even unChristian, to be getting a kick out of the whole Greece/EU debacle? I think it is, and I'm trying to deal with it. Part of me reminds myself that one should never wish ill on anyone, and the option to wish that they would change for the better is always not only paramount, but the only real option. But there is a part of me that enjoys watching an avowedly leftist government overseeing the prospect of having its reign marked by being forced to enact deep cuts in government services, privatizing substantial portions of its economy, and more. And the fact that it may have to do that no matter what, and depending on -how- it does it it may torpedo the monstrosity known as the European Union, is all the better.
* Naturally, I've been enjoying Rand Paul's response to the little Pro-Abortion trap, and it seems to have caused something of a reaction among other GOP presidential candidates. Could you imagine if the 2016 race was the race where the GOP became openly hostile to the near-entirety of the mainstream media? Where they stopped pretending these 'journalists' were, for the most part, anything but partisan shills in the employ of the Democrats? Now that would be one hell of a culture war development.
* Meanwhile, I notice the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle continues. Brad Torgersen apparently thinks that he can act nice and apologize his way out of SJW hatred, which always baffles me. Have they not picked up the pattern yet? Do they notice that apologizing, that trying to gain SJW sympathy, never has any effect at all? That they see it as weakness? There's a reason there has been collective pants-shitting among people by Vox's presence and association with this debacle - because they know, come hell or highwater, that Vox and company are not people who can be shamed into silence, or apparently, silenced at all. Brad is not Vox, of course, but Brad may actually be capable of learning from Vox here.
* The main effect of the whole Sad/Rabid Puppies event may well be that it gets more conservatives - and other right-wing social pariahs - into sci-fi, at least as readers, perhaps as writers. God, wouldn't that just be the most horrifying thing? Can you imagine people having literary figures as heroes, and for those heroes to be conservative? Be still my dark heart.
Edit: Since there is some confusion, I want to be clear. I'm not advocating schism, or saying that the SSPX option is correct. I'm pointing out that the SSPX - kind of the standard-bearers for the ultra-traditionalists, I suppose - reject Elliot's binary of 'suffer in silence, or become sedevacantist'. I do not think there are only three options available here.
My summarized view is that there are some things the Pope cannot do, tradition and teaching he cannot change. To be loyal to that teaching and that tradition while he tries to undo it is not disloyalty to the Pope, since undoing it is not his option. Nor do I think this is something which can be "pastorally" worked around via technicalities.