Lefebvrians set 'irrenunciable'
conditions for accepting
the Vatican's doctrinal preamble
by Andrea Tornielli
Adapted and translated from the Italian service of
July 23, 2012
VATICAN CITY - The Lefebvrians' General Chapter meeting ended a few days ago, in the wake of the Holy See’s request for a response from the Fraternity regarding the doctrinal preamble. By accepting and signing the preamble, the Fraternal Society of St. Pius X would have received canonical recognition and returned to full communion with Rome.
But the road ahead still looks rough and rocky. In a letter to District Superiors dated July 18, the Fraternity’s Secretary General, Fr. Christian Thouvenot, provided a summary of the current situation in the relations between the Society and the Vatican.
The letter contained the absolute (“sine qua non”) conditions presented by the Fraternity to the Vatican before they can accept the doctrinal preamble:
1. “The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition, and
the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.”
[The above condition certainly sounds arrogantly offensive - the itsy-bitsy tail FSSPX seeking to wag the universal Church to its bidding! - compared to the condition about Vatican II that Mons. Lefebvre signed in 1988! While it might be an acceptable implied condition - sure, they can dissent about this as do all the other dissenters on the things they dissent about within the Church - but it is not one that can ever be put in writing!]
2. The exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962 and retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including holy orders, confirmation, and marriage).
The letter also includes other conditions which are considered desirable but not essential: the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of first instance; the exemption of FSSPX houses from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops
[they would be exempt, in any case, if they were a personal prelature like the Opus Dei]; and a Pontifical Commission for the Roman Tradition, directly answerable to the Pope, in which the President and majority of the members are pro-Tradition.
In terms of the first two conditions considered 'irrenunciable', it is obvious that the first condition represents what continues to be the main stumbling block to any reconciliation.
Since Benedict XVI's motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum in July 2007, there is no longer any impediment to celebrating the traditional Mass as the Lefebvrians have always done.
[But the condition implies that the FSSPX will not accept the validity of the Novus Ordo, even if they never have to use it - once again contrary to Mons. Lefebvre's concessions in 1988!]
Both this letter which was sent out to the district superiors but not intended for publication. and the concluding communiqué published at the end of the Society’s General Chapter, refer to the errors of modernism and Vatican II.
In the latest version of the disputed Doctrinal Preamble which the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, delivered on June 13 to FSSPX Superior-General Bernard Fellay, the FSSPX was asked not to criticise the new Mass and to recognise its validity and lawfulness
[as Lefebvre agreed to in 1988.] The Society was also asked to accept the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, which incorporates the teachings of Vatican II in the light of Tradition.
Fellay made it clear that he could not sign the Preamble as it was, in his two-hour meeting with Cardinal Levada on June 13. At their recent General Chapter meeting at FSSPX headquarters in Econe, Switzerland (to which negationist Mons. Richard Williamson was not invited), the FSSPX reviewed and discussed the content of the entire discussions with the Vatican which began in October 2009.
The FSSPX statement afterwards indicated that there was now full agreement within the society, after the objections formally presented by Fellay's three bishop colleagues to any agreement with Rome.
It appears from that statement that the Lefebvrians do not intend to close the door on dialogue. But it is hard to imagine that the text they reject - which was debated and closely examined by the cardinal members of the CDF then approved by Benedict XVI - could be subject to any substantial change.
“The Second Vatican Council is binding,” said the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Müller in an interview. “The declaration on
relations with the media (???) we can talk about, but the statements on Jews, freedom of religion. and human rights have dogmatic implications. If these are rejected, they jeopardise the Catholic faith.”
[It would be nice if Tornielli had mentioned the occasion when Mueller said this.]
In his open letter to all the Catholic bishops of the world in March 2009, after the Williamson case became a media flash point, Benedict XVI wrote:
The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
This is the hermeneutic of reform in continuity with Tradition that must be used with respect to Vatican II, as Benedict XVI has sought to stress since he became Pope. But it seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the FSSPX.
I hate to be repetitive, but how can Fellay and company today be more Lefebvrian than their founder himself, who in May 1988, signed his agreement to the following 'doctrinal conditions' - which were framed, ity must be said, with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger?
2. We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in number 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council on the ecclesial Magisterium and the adherence which is due to that Magisterium.
3. With regard to certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and [Church] law, and which seem to us able to be reconciled with the Tradition only with difficulty, we commit ourselves to have a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Holy See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare in addition to recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing that which the Church does and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
From the FSSPX point of view, things have only changed for the better since Mons. Lefebvre signed that statement. Why should they now be more demanding than he was?
They now have a Pope who has unequivocally and repeatedly affirmed that Vatican II teachings must be interpreted in the light of the Church's whole Tradition, who has revalidated the traditional Mass (which was, for decades, the FSSPX's battle standard against Rome), who has lifted the excommunication of the four bishops illegally consecrated by Mons. Lefebvre, who agreed to 'doctrinal discussions' as a sign of good faith but obviously without implying that he would in any way reject Vatican II. Why have they now become more exigent than Lefebvre himself was?
And obviously, the paragraph of the proposed Doctrinal Preamble leaked from Fr. Pfluger does not quite tell the whole story, because the first of the irrenunciable conditions set by the FSSPX is clearly unacceptable if they expect it to be set in writing!
With the best will in the world, it's hard to justify the FSSPX's arrogant intransigence on this matter. They continually cite their founder and yet they are clearly demanding things beyond what even Marcel Lefebvre himself sought and agreed to!
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 24/07/2012 00:01]