More evidence that Benedict XVI has not given up trying to bring the FSSPX back into the fold, and what was earlier speculated is now clear - that it was the reason he assigned one of his ex-CDF aides, Mons. Augustine Di Noia, to be the vice-president of Ecclesia Dei, the agency directly dealing with the FSSPX. There was no such position before, but it gives Di Noia greater weight to act for Ecclesia Dei, whose ex-officio president is the Prefect of the CDF, Mons. Mueller (and he has quite a history of bad blood with the FSSPX, openly condemning every year the ordination of priests at the FSSPX seminary in Zaitkofen, within the Diocese of Regensburg)... I've swung from initially hopeful about this venture, to being darkly pessimistic in the past year as the FSSPX has sounded more and more stridently combative in their public position (and as they keep raising the bar, outrageously, IMHO, at least in public, regarding their rejection of Vatican II).
An eight-page letter from the Vatican
seeks to reopen discussions with the FSSPX
by Andrea Tornielli
Translated from the Italian service of
January 19, 2012
A new move from the Holy See towards the FSSPX has been disclosed: - Mons. Augustine Di Noia, into whose hands Benedict XVI consigned the difficult FSSPX dossier, wrote the FSSPX Superior-General, Mons. Bernard Fellay last month, and through him, all the priests of the traditionalist holdout fraternity, offering some proposals that would lead to resumption of a dialog that has been stalled since June 2012.
It will be recalled that after almost three years of periodic doctrinal discussions held in Rome, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (of which Ecclesia Dei is an agency) turned over to the FSSPX a doctrinal preamble approved by the Pope which, if signed by the FSSPX, would lead to bringing the latter back into full communion with Rome and a definition of its canonical status.
A definitive written answer never came. The Vatican proposal was discussed within the FSSPX, revealing internal tensions, including the outright objection of the three other FSSPX bishops to continuing any dialog with Rome.
Meanwhile, the new Prefect of the CDF, Archbishop Ludwig Mueller, made harsh statements criticizing the FSSPX positions )though he made more conciliatory statements later). And Mons. Fellay stirred up new concerns when he declared in a November speech to an FSSPX community in the United States naming Jews among the 'enemies of the Church for centurixs', saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s”. The obstacles to any rapprochement seemed insuperable.
Archbishop Di Noia's letter is a novelty. The Dominican theologian, an American, is a well-prepared theologian who is also very realistic. In the letter sent to Fellay before Christmas, he asked him to provide copies to all his priests.
Le Figaro's Jean Guenois claims that Benedict XVI himself took the initiative for the eight-page letter, which he reviewed and approved before it was sent.
Guenois says Di Noia expresses the strong desire of the Vatican to 'overcome existing tensions' and summarizes the current situation in three essential points: the actual state of relationships between Econe and Rome, the spirit of this relationship, and a method for resuming the interrupted dialog.
With respect to the interpretation of Vatican-II, Di Noia reportedly says that the discussion remains 'open' and 'hopeful' despite hostile statements made by the Lefebvrians since June 2012.
In a way, Di Noia would be authoritatively confirming for the first time, on the part of the Vatican, that there is a fundamental impasse and the absence of any progress in the dispute over Vatican II.
The second part of the letter reportedly underscores the importance of Church unity and therefore, the need to avoid "pride, anger and impatience", saying the "disagreement over fundamental points should not exclude debating these controversial questions with a spirit of openness".
Finally, the third part of the letter reportedly proposes two ways out of the impasse. The first would be to properly acknowledge the special charism of Mons. Lefebvre and the society he founded, which was primarily intended for 'the formation of priests", not for "counter-p[roductive rhetoric", nor to "pass judgement and correct Church theology", and much less, to "publicly censure and correct what the Church says".
Di Noia reportedly cites a passage from the 1990 CDF document
Donum veritatis (The gift of truth), published with regard to the dissidence of progressive theologians, which says that 'theological differences' are recognized by the Church, as long as objections are expressed internally, not in public, in order to stimulate a better 'formulation of what the Magisterium teaches'; and above all, that such objections must never take the form of a 'parallel Magisterium'..
[Other traditionalist groups who have since come back to Rome and who have similar reservations about some teachings of Vatican II have accepted this reasonable condition, of keeping their objections within the Church and not part of public discourse.
It is more difficult with the Lefebvrians, who may agree (that's a major IF) not to be openly subversive, but may insist on teaching within their own community that Vatican II - and with it, the official Church Magisterium - are wrong in advocating religious freedom and respect for the non-Christian faiths as non-negotiable and non-retractable principles of action, even if not articles of faith!]
Rome is awaiting a response, hoping this time for something positive.
[Mons. Fellay can do as he has done since June - not send any formal reply at all, while continuing to criticize the Vatican openly every occasion he has. He revealed last November that Benedict XVI had written him personally to explain the conditions of the Doctrinal Preamble, but he simply rejected them in public, without saying whether he had the courtesy to send the Pope a note acknowledging receipt of his letter without saying anything else (because if he did - and it could only have been NO, thanks - that would have amounted to his response to the June proposal from the CDF).]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 20/01/2013 05:45]