The superior of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, has apparently ruled out the possibility of his fraternity complying with conditions laid down by the Vatican for them to exercise ministry in the Church.
Last week, following an outcry over the lifting of the excommunications of four SSPX bishops by Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican Secretariat of State issued a statement saying that “full recognition of the Second Vatican Council” was an “indispensable condition for any future recognition of the SSPX” by the Church.
However, in an interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel published on Tuesday, Bishop Fellay said the Second Vatican Council was responsible for the “deplorable state of affairs in the Catholic Church today”. The SSPX particularly rejected three points in the council declarations, he said, “namely the ecumenical initiatives, the declaration on religious liberty and the introduction of the vernacular in the liturgy”. “Since these changes in the Church, we have experienced a unique collapse of church life unlike anything in the entire history of the Church,” he added.
[i] Since these changes in the Church, we have experienced a unique collapse of church life unlike anything in the entire history of the Church [/i]
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
So, when you get down to it, the real issues aren’t resolved, the SSPX folks still think they know the mind of God better than the whole Church, and the pope wasted his time, and stirred up a hornet’s nest for nothing.
Please do not accept at face value the Bitter Pills take on the situation. They deliberately distort the picture for their own ideological ends. As Bishop Fellay said only last week:
[blockquote]”There is a dangerous spirit which permeates all the Council, and, in this sense, we reject it”; but, when we speak of the letter, it is not about rejecting it outright as it is”.[/blockquote]
Many of the documents of V2 were drafted so vaguely or sloppily to such an extent that it was possible to twist the interpretation of their true meaning to suit ones own purposes and this is exactly what occurred with the whole “Spirit of Vatican 2” thing – Not only did the baby get thrown out with the bathwater, so did the bath tub.
The forthcoming dialogue with the SSPX will finally provide the definitive, true, orthodox interpretation of the council on all outstanding issues.
PS: Ignore the prattlings of the German bishops, with the exception of the Bavarian bishops (and not all of them either), most of them are liberal Lutherans in all but name. It shouldn’t be a surprise that many, paraphrasing Fr Ralph Wiltgen, have described the fallout from V2 as “the Rhine polluting the Tiber”.
My issues with Roman Catholicism aside, if SSPX wants to be a serious player at the table, it needs to distance itself from Williamson’s overt Anti-Semitism while affirming Fellay’s approach to the Jewish community, namely that they, like everyone else, need Jesus.
The Tablet and Der Spiegel are both afraid of the tiny SSPX. And not because its “anti-semitism”…
Mons. Fellay has not said that the SSPX don’t accept the Council, he has made distinctions, and that’s bad news for those who consider Vatican II as a “super-dogma”:
http://www.famillechretienne.fr/agir/vie-de-l-eglise/monseigneur-fellay-s-exprime-sur-vatican-ii-partie-12_t11_s73_d49485.html
Honestly, this is how many of us Prayer Book Society Folks feel about the 1979 Prayer Book, which is deeply affected by the Vatican II liturgical reforms.
Rome is forcing the US Bishops to re-translate the text of the Novus Ordo, but I don’t think the Episcopal Church will also jettison such theologically deficiencies as the modern translation of the creed or “And also with you” rather than “And with (thy) your spirit”.
#2, I’d say the excommunications were a pretty big issue. One step at a time. These folks have been focusing all their angst on the Council itself for, what, roughly half a century? It’s going to take time, and a theologian of Benedict’s caliber to start getting them to think a little deeper as to the causes of the problems in the Church than the boilerplate anti-Vatican II sentiments.
stjohns,
I sure hope if we have an alternate province in the US, one of the first things done will be a revision of the Prayer Book to bring it in line theologically with the ’28!
And as a former RC, I can’t wait to see the finished translation of the English Mass.
#6 –
Actually, the whole-English speaking world is involved in the new translation. The last I knew, Cardinal Pell of Australia was leading the effort. Of course, the problem is the variations among the various English-speaking countries.
As to the authority of the Second Vatican Council, there is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 891:
Anglicans don’t believe this, of course, per the 19th and 21st Articles (the latter, now omitted, stated that councils are not infallible). But a Catholic can’t ignore the letter of Vatican II. Of course, we can all decry the purported “Spirit of Vatican II”, but a faithful Catholic can’t reject the texts. And that is precisely what Archbishop LeFevre and his followers did, and, apparently, continue to do.
Conor – I just got it: Tablet/Bitter Pill. That’s funny. 🙂
GAFCON speaks of the traditional prayer book of 1662, which 1928 is a local adaptation rather than a complete revision.
The Prayer Book Society has a modern language translation of the 1662 book, which attempts to translate rather than revise, but I have not read it.
Yes, I had heard that the ’28 was not a ‘revision’, but that the ’79 was not only a revision but a complete re-writing. I would also like to see the modern language 1662 version.