ABOUT THE CHURCH AND THE VATICAN

It's taken me quite a while to getting around to translating a full item from Fr. Scalese's thoughtful blog, 'Senza peli sulla lingua" (Literally, 'without hair on the tongue', an idiom in the Romance languages for 'speaking freely/openly'). Lella on her blog and Beatrice on her site have previously quoted him in full.

He is an Italian Barnabite priest who has been serving as a missionary in the Philippines for the past five years, and I find most of his views quite congenial. And I fully share what he says in this open letter.

An open letter to Mons. Fellay
from Fr. Giovanni Scalese, CRSP
Translated from

July 27, 2009

---

Most Reverend Excellency,


I do not know if this 'open letter' will ever reach your hands. I entrust it to the angels so that they may bring it you personally. I already once wrote an article with your Fraternity in mind: I published it on this blog - my first post, in fact - and it miraculously reached its destination: it was picked up by the FSSPX sites and described therein as 'very interesting'.

This time, I address you directly, because I know that preparations are under way for doctrinal discussions with the Holy See, which you have wanted for so long, and which finally, with the recall of the excommunications, granted by Pope Benedict XVI. As I understand it, you have already been to Rome for your first contacts with the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith.

Personally, I have always thought that there is no need for 'conversations' in order to be readmitted into full communion with the Catholic Church.

The only thing needed, in my opinion, is the profession of faith provided for in the sacred canons. Once we share and profess the same faith, then I believe it is always possible to discuss freely - but within the Church, not outside it. [I reported on this - which seemed to me a most sensible suggestion - around the time of the Williamson brouhaha, and will re-post that comment after the letter, along with the 'Profession of Faith' formulation that he refers to.]

I do not think that [full and unconditional] acceptance of a Council, which defined itself as 'pastoral', should be a condition for readmission to ecclesial communion.

While I agree that what is more urgently needed now is a reflection on the value and interpretation of Vatican-II, I don't think this should be the object of negotiations between the Holy See and the FSSPX - because it is a matter that concerns the entire Church.

That is why I have proposed more than once in this blog that the next Bishops' Synod should be dedicated to the interpretation of Vatican-II.

In any case, it seems that both on your part and on the part of the Holy See, clarifications over Vatican-II are considered to be a condition that will precede any other kind of agreement. And thus, the need for 'doctrinal discussions'.

Well then, since these discussions are to take place, allow me to offer some advice. Not because I presume to know more than you do, but to express to you how I feel, in a spirit of fraternal love, at this sensitive point in time.

Above all, when you go to Rome for these discussions with the CDF, do not come as someone who disputes, or worse, rejects the Council. This will mean the immediate failure of any attempt at dialog.

Rather, come as someone who accepts Vatican-II for what it was meant to be, and what it actually was, a pastoral council. [i.e., not a doctrinal one].

But tell Cardinal Levada that what you reject - and on this, we all agree - is the absolutization and instrumentalization of the Council, not the Council itself.

You can even tell him that you find many texts from the Council ambiguous. And even in this, Cardinal Levada would agree with you.

Paul VI himself found the treatment of episcopal collegiality in Lumen gentium ambiguous, such that he saw the need to attach a Nota praevia to that constitution. He noted that since there were ambiguities in the Conciliar texts. a work of interpretation was necessary.

But, I beg of you, please do not present yourself or the FSSPX as the authoritative interprets of the Council. Rather, ask the Holy See to give an authentic interpretation of the more obscure passages.

Something similar has already been done (such as the above-mentioned Nota praevia), or the explanation of the expression 'subsistit in' [regarding the nature of the Catholic Church as the only Church of Christ]. But much still needs to be done.

The general criterion for such an interpretation was given by Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005: the hermeneutic of reform against the hermeneutic of discontinuity or rupture.

Tell them at the CDF that you are not only in full agreement with the Holy Father on this, but you wish to place yourself completely at his disposition to help in the work of rereading the Council along the lines of the Church's uninterrupted Tradition.

Most Reverend Excellency, I am sure that you agree in good emasure with what I have written so far. I perceive that from the tone of your recent statements, which have been much more conciliatory and open to possibilities than before.

But I also know that you must take into account the more extreme positions within the FSSPX that warn you against yielding too much when dealing with the Holy See.

In my humble opinion, you should be able to show these brothers of yours that there is nothing to gain at this point in stiffening yourself into intransigent positions.

The Holy Father has already made quite a few steps towards you; now, it is your turn to take a few steps towards him.

This does not mean that you are surrendering your principles, because if you truly have the destiny of the Church at heart, there is no better place to validate your principles than in the Church itself.

By remaining outside, you are leaving the Church to be prey to those destructive forces which have been bringing it bit by bit towards ruin. And as long as you continue to reject Vatican-II, these forces will have an ace by saying, "See? They are outside the church because they reject the Council. We are the real Church because we accept, defend and execute the Council".

But if you too accept the Council [even with reservations], then they will be off their game. And, it will be clearly seen who is truly Catholic and who is not; who interprets the Council in the light of Tradition and who instead interprets it ideologically by invoking a supposed 'spirit of Vatican II'.

Nor would this betray the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. You know better than I that your founder took part in Vatican II, and contributed notably to the discussions and the elaboration of the Council documents, which he approved and signed in their totality.

And why did he do so? Wasn't he aware then of the ambiguities contained in those documents? Evidently, he hoped that they would receive an orthodox interpretation. And it was only when he saw that the interpretation and application of the Council had become monopolized by the progressivists that he stiffened his positions.

I am convinced that if he had seen that there was a space within the Church to carry on his battle from within, he would never have decided to break up with Rome.

Now that this space exists, and it is the Supreme Pontiff himself who offers it, I think if would be foolish not to avail of this unrepeatable opportunity.

It means choosing whether to come into the Church and play a role within it - certainly difficult - that is invaluable for safeguarding Tradition and revitalizing the Church itself; or to remain at the fringes or completely out of the Church, with the risk of transforming yourselves into a shoot that has separated from the vine and is destined to dry up.

Excellency, forgive me if I have expressed myself on these delicate questions. I can assure you that, on my part, I have no other interest or pretext except the desire to see a re-establishment of full communion within the Church.

The Church needs you, and you need the Church.

I take the occasion to declare myself, with the utmost deference, your most devoted

Giovanni Scalese, CRSP

---

The last interview granted by Mons. Fellay was to the Italian news agency Apcom, and an English translation was posted yesterday (7/31) on
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
The translation is literally and substantially correct, but I will provide my own translation later.



Here, with a few modifications, is the first post I made about Fr. Scalese's views on the FSSPX and his suggestion that an explicit canonical 'profession of Faith' by Mons. Fellay and his followers should serve to reset 'full communion' in the Church. I posted it in the PRF CHURCH&VATICAN thread on April 11, 2009.



I do not quite agree with Cardinal Levada sounding more Popish than the Pope in his statements [to TIME magazine] about the FSSPX. The objections by the FSSPX have to do with ambiguous - namely open to interpretation by anyone - statements in the Vatican II documents, which have been, in fact, interpreted any which way, according to the individual bishop or priest's position on the ideological spectrum.

One of the tasks I have neglected is to translate some reflections from the blog of an Italian Barnabite missionary, Fr. Giovanni Scalese, who has been serving in the Philippines for the past five years, and whom European Catholic bloggers - the orthodox ones, not the liberals - have been citing for his incisive views and his great sense of irony. (He only started blogging in January 2009).
querculanus.blogspot.com/

And one of his blogs that resonated most was an ironic but entirely sound proposal on "how to settle the Lefebvrian doctrinal question in half an hour". Basically, it consists in Mons. Fellay meeting Cardinal Levada and executing a simple profession of faith -

---

I, Bernard Fellay, believe and profess with firm faith all and individually the truths expressed in the Symbol of our Faith, namely..."

[First, he would recite the Apostle's Creed, then the following sentences:]

I also believe firmly all that is contained in the Word of God written and transmitted, and which Th Church, in its solemn judgment, by ordinary or universal magisterium, belives to be divinely revealed.

I firmly accept all and individually the truths on the doctrine of the faith or the practices definitely proposed by the Church.

I also adhere with religious obedience of my will and intellect to the teachings that the Roman Pontiff or the episcopal college propose when they exercise their authentic magisterium, even if these are not so declared by definitive act.

---

The above formula happens to be the PROFESSION OF FAITH published in a 1998 manual published by the CDF, of which the above is the standard formula for anyone who is required by canon law to profess his faith - as returning ex-schismatics would, or theologians who agree to retract questionable or heretical assertions. It makes Levada's statements to TIME sound very pompous - and somewhat ignorant!

VERY IMPORTANT, I think, is that the CDF formula does not single out Vatican II to be specifically professed, since the Magisterium of the Church encompasses all the Church Councils that have taken place, not just Vatican II.

And it would seem to be 'class legislation' against the Lefebvrians if they had to undergo the process Levada describes - which was not required of the various offshoots of the FSSPX who have since been completely re-integrated into the Church.

Fr. Scalese's point is something quite obvious - questioning the interpretation of certain points of Vatican II is legitimate, and it has been done so within the Church from the beginning.

Cardinal Ratzinger famously questioned for 40 years the misinterpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy! Plus, hasn't that been the whole point of the 'progressivists' vs 'conservatives' division? And yet those progressivists remain in 'full communion'. As do full-blown abortionists.

Is questioning some statements of Vatican-II unacceptable while killing unborn children is 'acceptable', for purposes of being in 'full communion' with the Church? This does not make sense at all.

Fr. Scalese himself, who works for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, wrote a paper last year in which he questions certain interpretations of Vatican-II documents - and needless to say, the reintegrated ex-FSSPX priests of Institut Bon Pasteur and the St. Peter Fraternity, for instance, have been allowed to pursue their 'hermeneutical' questions on Vatican II.

His point is that one can certainly question some interpretations of Vatican II and remain in communion with the Church. Just look at all the bishops who openly defy the Magisterium of the Pope! Are they not infinitely more reproachable than the Lefebvrians?

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/09/2011 01:05]