Fellay’s second response (Catholic Caucus)

Vatican Insider ^ | January 17, 2012 | ANDREA TORNIELLI

[NYer]

Bernard Fellay

The first text reached the Vatican in December, but it was considered inadequate: the Holy See called for a new document, which has just arrived and is now being examined

Andrea Tornielli

Vatican City

 

 

The true response of the superior of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Bernard Fellay, formulated according to the requests of the Holy See, arrived at the Vatican just last week. The first reply, received by the Vatican on 21 December, was not considered adequate by Vatican authorities, who urged the head of the Lefebvrians to redraft it, considering the first delivery as more of a “documentation” than a reply. Thus Bishop Fellay has prepared a second text, more concise than the doctrinal preamble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent him last September. This second text is now being carefully examined by consultants from the Ecclesia Dei Commission - who follow the Lefebrvian dossier - and this could take time.

 

 

Next week the plenary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will meet in the palace of the Holy Office. On the agenda is a possible communication regarding relations with the Society of St. Pius X, but it is unlikely that the meeting will be decisive, because Fellay’s second response - which accepts some parts of the doctrinal preamble while questioning others - needs time to be examined. It is likely that a more accurate decision on what to do will not be made now, but in February, during a “Feria IV”, as defined by the ordinary congregations of the former Holy Office.

 

 

Recall that in the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Ecclesia Dei Commission (headed by Cardinal William Levada and led by Monsignor Guido Pozzo), the Lefebvrians were asked to subscribe to the profession of faith – that which is considered essential to being Catholic. The profession requires three different levels of approval and distinguishes between revealed truths, dogmatic statements, and ordinary magisterium. About the latter, it says that the Catholic is called to ensure a “religious submission of will and intellect” to the teachings that the Pope and the college of bishops “offer when they exercise their authentic Magisterium,” even if they are not proclaimed in a dogmatic way, as is the case with most of the documents of the magisterium.

 

 

In delivering the preamble, the Vatican authorities indicated that this text was not made public because it was not yet final - that is, subject to change (though not substantive) or possible additions. From September to December, rumors of dissent within the Fraternity were spread by those who do not believe an agreement with Rome is possible. Fellay himself has spoken several times on the subject. At first he said that the preamble represented a great step forward. Then, after an important meeting with the heads of the districts of the Fraternity, while reiterating the importance of engaging in dialogue, he said he could not accept the preamble as it is, adding: “If Rome tells us to accept in any case, we cannot.” Thus Fellay sent the first response, which was not considered such by the Vatican. And now he has sent the second.

 

 

The fact that the new and more appropriate response - which was considered in the sacred palazzos to be a “step forward” - needs to be carefully studied and considered, meaning that it is neither a definitive “yes” or “no” to the final text of the preamble. But it welcomes some parts of the Vatican text, while expressing reservations about others, and above all, it calls for further clarifications and additions. In fact, the Lefebvrians do not intend to give their assent to the texts of the Council regarding collegiality, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and religious freedom, because they believe these to be inconsistent with tradition. Indeed, the concept of tradition - “Traditio” - and its value, represents the crux of the debate that has characterized the talks between the Society and the Holy See. The Lefebvrians criticize some of the Council’s provisions, considering them to be at odds with the tradition of the Church.

 

 

As a Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger repeatedly insisted on the need not to consider the Council as a “superdogma.” As Pope, Benedict XVI - in the now-famous speech to the Roman Curia in December 2005 - stressed the need to interpret Vatican II according to the hermeneutics of “reform” in “continuity”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (which in 2012 celebrates its twentieth anniversary with a special Year of Faith), has already offered this interpretative key to some of the points that the Lefebvrians consider controversial.

 

 

It is still too soon to speculate about what will be the final outcome of this dialogue, which, at this stage, continues at a distance and in writing. But no final word has yet been spoken: the Pope wants to do everything possible to heal the rift created by the Lefebvrians, and Fellay knows this well.

[NYer]

Ping!

[ArrogantBustard]

Sometimes, I wonder if these bozos are worth all the fuss-n-feathers.

Then I remember the Parable of the Lost Sheep.

And I remember that I, too, have been a lost sheep.

Yeah, they're worth it.

[nickcarraway]

Pope Benedict is using this to benefit the whole Church. He’ll figure it out.

[ArrogantBustard]

Be glad that Josef Cardinal Ratzinger got selected to be Servant of the Servants of God ... and not me.

[nickcarraway]

I am glad. (No offense intended ;)

[Hieronymus]

I often think that of myself, and on two accounts—not only would it be bad for many others, it would have been really really bad for me.

[mas cerveza por favor]

“The Lefebvrians criticize some of the Council’s provisions, considering them to be at odds with the tradition of the Church.”

This should be easy to resolve. Line up the infallible teaching teachings of Tradition alongside the new teachings of Vatican II. Then cross out the parts of Vatican II that conflict with infallible Tradition. Otherwise, the principle of infallibility divinely established in scripture and by the Apostles is tossed out the window.

Unfortunately, modernists have put out a smokescreen of confusion over Vatican II by refusing to define what it means in writing. When cornered by traditionalists, modernists define Vatican II to line up with Tradition, but they install liberal (and faux-conservative) bishops who implement Vatican II in ways that absolutely conflict with infallible Tradition.

Somebody has to call these modernist saboteurs to task. The SSPX was founded to resist the unreality of modernism by holding fast to Sacred Tradition. When modernists realized that the SSPX was foiling their plans to exterminate the Traditional Latin Mass, they tried to expel the SSPX by successive degrees, but the modernists failed in their war against Christ’s Church. The Traditional Latin Mass has been retained! However, the work of restoration has only begun. Many Catholics forgot that the Church does not belong to man, but to God.

Catholics will see their Sacred Tradition fully restored whether they like it or not! :-)