Vatican say No to deal with traditionalists
The Vatican has informed leaders of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that doctrinal differences prevent the regularization of the traditionalist group.
The Vatican announced on March 16 that Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX, has been notified that Pope Benedict XVI could not accept the position put forward by the traditionalist group in its response to an offer from the Holy See.
Last September, after months of talks, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had presented SSPX leaders with a “doctrinal preamble,” which could provide the basis for a canonical agreement regularizing the status of the SSPX. The group has been separated from Rome since 1988, when its founder, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, consecrated new bishops without permission from Rome. In 2009 Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications that resulted from that act, but the SSPX bishops remain suspended from active ministry.
The Vatican made it clear in September that the SSPX would be asked to accept the “doctrinal preamble” as a condition for reconciliation with the Holy See. Although the contents of the document have not been made public, the Vatican was asking for an acknowledgment from the SSPX that the teachings of Vatican II are valid.
In a first response to the “doctrinal preamble,” SSPX officials said that they could not accept the document as it was written, and suggested some amendments. The Vatican today revealed that Bishop Fellay has been advised that “the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.”
Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, told reporters that an agreement is still possible. “The question isn’t considered closed,” he said. An official Vatican statement indicated that Bishop Fellay “was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.”
However, the prospect of an agreement now appears remote. Informed sources at the Vatican say that Pope Benedict, who has sought for years to end the split between the Holy See and the SSPX, made the final decision to reject the SSPX position. The Pontiff evidently concluded that the SSPX response to the “doctrinal preamble” was not even adequate to form the basis for further negotiations.
In its March 16 statement, the Vatican said that it was seeking another response from Bishop Fellay in order “to void an ecclesiastical rupture of painful and incalculable consequences.”
22 comments:
Well, I am really sorry to hear this. I was hoping for a rapproachment of some kind. There is entirely too much divisiveness within Mother Church, much of which I lay at the feet of, if not Vat II per se, then certainly the false and liberal interpretation of it. These are dangerous times for the Church; I had hoped for a unified front against the inroads of secular humanism. Instead, we get a fight over tradition within the flock. Catholics, just like the Republican party, are great at organizing circular firing squads.
If the "response to the 'doctrinal preamble' was not even adequate to form the basis for further negotiations", why did the CDF ask for a further clarification, which involves further negotiations?
At any rate, this is strong language from the CDF: the phrase "ecclesiastical rupture" seems like a code word for schism to me.
It is clear, though, that the Holy Father greatly desires "reunification" with the SSPX. If there is room in the Church for progressivists and Modernists like the Neocatechumenal Way, there is room for the SSPX. And that might be the problem - the SSPX doesn't want to be in "full communion" with the likes of the Neocatechumenal Way. Frankly, I sympathize with that position. But, the Church is universal and it is time for the SSPX to spread their mission within the disciplinary confines of the "Conciliar" Church.
Whatever you feel about the SSPX, they are solely responsible for the existence of the Tridentine Mass today. The Mass of the Ages would have died without them. It is high time they fight from within because when they are inside they will have much greater support from people of my ilk and hopefully they would have more support from diocesan priests (how would Fr. McDonald feel about a regularized SSPX, I wonder?).
Although I'm sure diocesan bishops
will continue to treat them poorly as they have the FSSP. This is why the personal prelature (that particularly Vatican II idea!) is so perfect for the SSPX - they retain autonomy from the diocesan bishops, which I believe is necessary for their mission of basically being a model of Traditional Catholicism, a model desperately needed by many bishops, particularly in the US.
I just want to say that nothing final has been reached yet. The CDF has given another month for Bishop Fellay of the SSPX to mull this over; presumably, this allowance was given with permission of the Holy Father.
Check out rorate-caeli.blogspot.com
An additional thought here: One cannot lay the entire issue at the feet of the SSPX. The Vatican, specifically the Holy Father himself, needs to clarify the questionable points of VII ("religious liberty", ecumenism, liturgy, and collegiality). This needs to be done not only for the reconciliation of the SSPX, but for the good of the entire Church. At this point, it is clearly scandalizing a sizable number of people and causing significant problems.
The progress of these talks with the SSPX must proceed with caution and patience because the ramifications are huge for the universal Church, not just a subset of Catholic Traditionalists. The Holy Father understands this better than anyone else as he lived through these things and has known these people personally for a very long period of time. I completely trust him in this (and all) regards to sort it out in the best interest of the Church. My concern is that there are others in the Vatican that do not have good will toward the SSPX because their founder basically called those people out as Modernists during and following Vatican II. They have it out for Abp. Lefebvre and his followers. I pray they do not have too much of the Holy Father's ear in these proceedings!
The deadline for +Fellay to respond is Low Sunday/Divine Mercy Sunday... That is quite encouraging as I am certain that the Holy Father recognizes how symbolic it would be for him to reconcile the SSPX to the universal Church on Divine Mercy Sunday (which is an interesting Feast in the old calendar as, even though it is of more recent origin, it has "forced" its way into the 1962 Calendar - a great example of the new influencing the old)!
None of us really knows WHAT the detailed content of the talks have been, so one cannot lay the blame anywhere at this point. However, since the Vatican is at least giving Bishop Fellay another opportunity to clarify his position, I think it's counterproductive to jump the gun with headlines like "No Deal!".
I can think of one point where I definitely sympathize with Fellay: Why is it that so many sectors of our Ecumenically-minded, tolerant, diversity-loving Church welcome Protestants with open arms and treat the SSPX like a disease?
If the pope IS unable to reach an agreement with them, I would not be surprised it's because there are other forces at work "tying" his hands.
We owe it to our Church and the cause of Christian unity to pray and sacrifice for the intention of a happy reunion.
I agree about the anti-ecumenical attitude of many progressive Catholics toward the SSXP especially when these same Catholics are so hospitable to Protestants who are even further away in dogma and morals from the Catholic Church. But at the same time, the Holy Father can only bring into the Anglican Ordinariate those who assent to the fullness of Catholic teaching--the establishment of this Ordinariate couldn't happen without the cooperation of Anglicans who are more Catholic than Protestant but still needed some doctrinal and moral refinement and defining.
I am not clairvoyant like Fr. McDonald, but I think most commentators unfamiliar with Vaticanese are reading this wrong. Certainly, the alleged "informed sources at the Vatican" are the usual folks playing the usual game of leaks intended to forestall a step which they oppose.
To me, it appears possible that this is the endgame, and that the desired rapprochement is in sight. Given the great blessing to the Church that would result, let us pray that this is so.
I love the giddy way in which the article is written, as if the authors are happy at the thought of No Deal.
Anyway, the truth is far from the way it was presented in the article. The actual communique has no sense of ultimatum, no deadline. It is pure Roman Courtesy. The sense of Ultimatum is being created by the Press, either ignorantly or willfully, and the notion of a deadline came from the mouth of the Vatican Press Secretary, notorious for his ad libs and misquotes.
This is just the latest round in negotiations which in the end, must result in a reconciliation with the SSPX for the simple matter that the establishment Church needs them much more than they need it. B16 is smart enough to count and realize that time and the biological solution will solve this dispute in favor the SSPX if he does not.
If any schism were to be formally anounced if an agreement is not reached then all discussions and reponses could enter the public forum, being released by the SSPX. This could backfire on Rome in the sense that if it becomes obvious that Rome is simply denying positions whe has always held then this will do enormous damage to her credibility. There will be more explaining to groups other than the SSPX. The Catholic Faithful will want to know. And the SSPX will have no reason to conceal the documents any longer. They will need to explain precisely why they would be further marginalized or declared schismatic. I will pray what Henry commented comes to pass. That this is simply to avert hostility or attempts to twarft an agreement before it actually happens. I pray for strength for the Holy Father and for Bishop Fellay. This reunion with the SSPX is not only about this group, but with her own identity. If it is indeed the same as it has always been then, as Rome states, then the agreement should be easier than we think. If not then rupture indeed has taken place.
The problem with the establishment of the FSSP is that there was no equivalent provision for the laity. This is where an ordinariate would be useful. Maybe bishops will become more open to requests for the traditional Roman liturgy in the future, but forty years of waiting already seems pastorally insensitive. The SSPX would be in a position to push for canonical and enforceable rights for the laity, if an initial agreement can be reached.
As for the theological issues, the Vatican is simply going to have to take the Vatican II documents and explain their meanings point by point in light of Tradition, or we'll be stuck in uncertainty for decades to come.
Speaking in a broader sense, and not to this particular statement, I find it interesting that the Vatican is so visibly and pointedly concerned with the relatively small phenomenon of SSPX and not so much with the rampant modernism in evidence in pews worldwide (i.e., left-wing practices not merely questionable or debatable, but ones that everyone on this blog would decry).
The different treatment seems to be based on different priorities given to institutional rupture/schism as opposed to orthodoxy/orthopraxis. In other words, it's ok to be as publicly erroneous and as scandalous as you want to be as long as you do so under the eye of lawful ordinaries. But when you do wild and crazy things like kneeling to receive communion and using Latin, and your priest and bishop aren't an accepted part of the establishment, then watch out!
To be fair, we do see a response consistent with this--if lower-profile--when you see institutional things on the left such as "ordination" of women. But even so, this concern about schism and evasion about, and outright refusal to confront, crises of doctrine seems to me to be more about power than about truth--and yes, about making sure Catholic money comes to Catholic coffers. After all, Kennedy and Pelosi money is just as green as anyone's, and there's a lot more of it.
I think the Holy Father recognizes that the SSPX is very Catholic and that Vatican II turned them into something they weren't previously, unfaithful Catholics. But this change came from Vatican II imposed from outside of them that they rejected, but technically if Vatican II hadn't happened there would be no problem. So it is an interesting conundrum to say the least.
In terms of main line Catholicism which has lost its way, at least they are technially in union with the Holy Father and no bishop has formally opposed the Holy Father in ordaining female priests or other bishops. I don't think the Holy Father would be interested in the least in reconciling with that type of break unless there was full-blown repentance and renouncing of what occurred.
Fr. McDonald, it is indeed difficult to reconcile the conflicting aspects of the Church's post-Vatican II situation. We have a prelate like Bishop Fellay who--so far as I can see--fully recognizes Pope Benedict as the reigning Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ on Earth, fully accepts--so far as I can see--all of the traditional moral and theological doctrines of the Church, but does feel able to hand over his followers to the jurisdiction of bishops who in practical reality do not accept the authority of the pope and in some cases manifestly reject important doctrines of the Church.
So Bishop Fellay--whom Pope Benedict fully recognizes as a valid bishop--remains in a state of technical disunion, while disloyal bishops who may damage the Church more remain in full communion. Whereas Bishop Fellay arguably is doing more--by his insistence on a traditional interpretation of Vatican II--to support Pope Benedict than the many bishops who oppose the pope's own desire for a traditional interpretation of Vatican II.
All this surely is difficult to understand. Could this "interesting conundrum" be a symptom of valuing administrative legality more than theological fidelity. I wonder whether there's an underlying question here that affects not only bishops and prelates, but ordinary faithful at parish level, when we go along (or at best remain silent) with something that's clearly wrong, rather than rock the boat by speaking out. Or perhaps if and when we remain in a parish that remains in good diocesan standing while manifestly violating moral or liturgical precepts.
"... the Holy Father recognizes that the SSPX is very Catholic and that Vatican II turned them into something they weren't previously, unfaithful Catholics."
Blaming Vatican II for the SSPX's schism is like blaming the serpent for Adam and Eve's sin.
The Second Vatican Council didn't force anyone to separate from the Church. That was a choice they made (and make) for themselves.
(1) The SSPX were formed after Vatican II.
(2) The SSPX are not in schism and have never been so.
(3) If we're to discuss these things, perhaps we could try to do so with factual accuracy.
The only reason SSPX is not in schism is through the generosity of the Holy Fathers since their inception--it is a grace that has been given them, since it is the Holy Father who determines what is schismatic. But they are on thin ice and the fact that each and everyone of the clergy, including the bishops are "suspended" is very, very serious and as I say a step away from schismatic status.
In terms of PI, yes they choose the path that they have chosen because of their inability to accept change in the Church they deem changes their religion. It is like those modern progressives who hate Pope Benedict for his restoration agenda and Summorum Pontificum and refuse to even acknowledge he has changed the Church by doing so--they too are stuck in a time warp! :)
" It is like those modern progressives who hate Pope Benedict for his restoration agenda and Summorum Pontificum and refuse to even acknowledge he has changed the Church by doing so--they too are stuck in a time warp! :)"
A modern progressive just like Pater Ignotus. I'm still patiently waiting for his response on allowing the TLM at his parish. (No sign of hell freezing over yet!)
Adlai, A physicist might say that Ignotus/Kavanaugh's parishioners have an infinitely diminishing, non-zero possibility of having the TLM...LOL!
Adlai, write the bishop. A priest is being disobedient to the Holy Father himself by not celebrating the TLM (or allowing another priest to do so at the parish) when asked by a stable group of the faithful (even a very small group is enough). You have to get the bishop involved - this is particularly important right now because our bishop has been petitioned to have a personal TLM parish in our Diocese, so he needs to know we have enough support for that.
As far as I know, the request is to have the parish in Augusta (as it seems all priests in that deanery are disobedient to the Holy Father in their failing to offer the TLM despite proper requests). But, I think such a parish would flourish in the Macon Deanery since Fr. McDonald has already paved the way!
Many of us have written to the bishop expressing our support in this venture. If you'd like to do so as well, I will forward you his address.
"they have chosen because of their inability to accept change in the Church they deem changes their religion."
I hold no brief for the SSPX and am not associated with them in any way, but my impression is that they do not accept those "spirit of Vatican II" changes in the Church which have changed the religion of all to many Catholics. It seems clear to me that Pope Benedict--in his call for authentic re-interpretation of the documents of Vatican II so as to be in continuity with traditional belief--does not accept these changes either.
Henry, that is my impression as well. But, there are those who, because Benedict was involved in Vat II, see him as a product of it and, therefore, doubt his willingness to follow up what he has begun, I do not believe this is true, but I keep getting an echo of it...
Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger, then a young university theology professor, played a fairly prominent role in Vatican II, as the peritus and chief theological advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings, Ab. of Cologne. However, in his autobiography he relates how by the late 1960s he realized that the Council had been hijacked, and that what was being implemented was not what the Council Fathers had understood or intended.
Post a Comment