Society of St. Pius X Asks Rome for Modifications to Doctrinal Preamble

By Andrea Tornielli
11/30/2011
Vatican Insider, La Stampa (vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/)

It is obvious that the interview did not provide the final response

The Holy See has not excluded the possibility of keeping discussions open on certain points of the Second Vatican Council which the Lefebvrians still consider problematic. The path towards a potential agreement with the Brotherhood still seems to be all uphill and there have been rumours over the past few weeks of a strong internal opposition to the Vatican proposal. The Vatican made it clear that it considered their agreement to the points made in the document, vital, if they were to enter into full communion again with the Catholic Church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

VATICAN CITY (Vatican Insider) - (Editors Note: Conflicting reports are circulating concerning the response of the Society of St Pius X to the Doctrinal Preamble offered to them by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a sincere effort at effecting reconciliation. We choose to offer verbatim the report from Andrea Tornielli, one of the most accurate of European Journalists. We ask our global readers to continue to pray for reconciliation. It appears that the effort is not over, even if it is proceeding slowly.)

From the Vatican Insider

The Lefebvrians ask for modifications to the Doctrinal Preamble delivered to them by the Holy See... Andrea Tornielli

"It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a "legitimate discussion" about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final document that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public."

This was the much awaited reply given by Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X, to Vatican authorities. Last September, following a series of doctrinal talks between Lefebvrians and the Holy See, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith delivered the doctrinal preamble text to the Lefebvrians.

The Vatican made it clear that it considered their agreement to the points made in the document, vital, if they were to enter into full communion again with the Catholic Church. This would also make it possible for the Church to offer them some canonical status.

The interview published by Fellay in the Society's official online bulletin reveals that attached to the Preamble, was a note, explaining that Lefebvrians could ask for clarifications in order to suggest any modifications. However, the heads of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada and Mgr. Guido Pozzo, are of the opinion that no substantial changes can be made to the document.

In actual fact, in the Preamble, the Society was asked to sign the "Professio fidei", a requirement for anyone who assumes an ecclesiastical office. Three steps of assent are required for the profession of the Catholic faith which distinguishes between revealed truths, dogmatic declarations and ordinary Church teaching.

In terms of the latter, the Church states that Catholics are called to guarantee "religious respect of intellect and will" for the teachings that the Pope and the college of bishops "put forward when they exercise their authentic teaching," even if these are not proclaimed in a dogmatic way, as is the case with most of the Magisterium's documents.

The Holy See has not therefore excluded the possibility of keeping discussions open on certain points of the Second Vatican Council which the Lefebvrians still consider problematic. The path towards a potential agreement with the Brotherhood still seems to be all uphill and there have been rumours over the past few weeks of a strong internal opposition to the Vatican proposal.

The interviewer asked Fellay: "Given that this document is not very clear, wouldn't it have been simpler to tell your Vatican interlocutors that it could not be taken into consideration?" "The simplest thing, perhaps, but not the most honest - the Brotherhood's Superior replied - Since the note that accompanies it foresees the possibility of making clarifications, to me it seems necessary to ask for them instead of refusing them a priori. This in no way prejudges the response that we will give."

The Lefebvrian bishop stated that the only eternal doctrine is the Creed, the profession of the Catholic faith, while "the Second Vatican Council" was a pastoral council "which did not define dogmas and did not add any new articles of faith such as "I believe in religious freedom, in ecumenism, in collegiality." Today, is the Creed no longer sufficient for being recognised as Catholics? Does it not convey the Catholic faith in its entirety?" The bishop seemed to say that the Creed and not the Preamble, which contains the "Professio fidei", is the common text that the Brotherhood would be prepared to subscribe its name to.

It is obvious that the interview did not provide the final response. The Superior of the Society of Saint Pius X is well aware of the internal oppositions with regard to the agreement with Rome, particularly among Lefebvrian leaders. In the written text that will be sent to the Vatican authorities, it appears he will be asking for substantial changes to the Doctrinal Preamble: the fact that the current text "was not met with approval" within the Society, clearly shows that it was not just the commas or the nuances that cause disagreement, but essential aspects of the document. The game is therefore not over yet, and the ball is now in the Vatican's court as the Lefebvrians await a response to their reply.

- - -

Vatican Insider is a project run by the daily newspaper La Stampa, designed to provide a complete information service on the Vatican, the activities of the Pope and the Holy See, the Catholic Church�s presence on the international scene and on religious issues. It is an independent multimedia tool, produced in three languages: Italian, English and Spanish.

Keywords: SSPX, Bishop Fellay, Society of St Pius X, Cardinal Levada, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Andrea Tornielli

NEWSLETTERS »

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 10 Comments

David W. Cooney
1 year ago
Bulbajer,
I am not a member of the SSPX. You are completely wrong about anti-Semitism and the Catholic Church. I am not saying that you are wrong about individual Catholics, even bishops and popes, being anti-Semitic. I am pointing out that their positions were never ever endorsed as part of Church teaching.

Additionally, ones opinion regarding Jews is not a matter of doctrine, and one can ONLY be excommunicated for a breach of faith or a failure of obedience. Additionally, excommunication - even when applied to a group - applies to each person individually. Therefore, you are absolutely incorrect to say that they cannot have full communion until they "renounce" Lefebvre's anti-Semitism on two grounds.

First, while it is incorrect and against the sense of the Church to be anti-Semitic, being anti-Semitic does not constitute a breach of faith or of legitimate obedience. Archbishop Lefebvre was declared excommunicated for the latter, not the former. As I said before, he and the bishops he ordained sought to defend themselves from the charge in accordance with the Code of Canon Law and the Vatican officials refused to allow them to do so for over 20 years before finally lifting the excommunications. One cannot be excommunicated for being anti-Semitic, and therefore renouncing anti-Semitism cannot be a condition of restoring one to full communion.

Second, because excommunication is something that applies to each person individually, one cannot be held accountable for the erroneous beliefs or views of others as a condition of being restored to full communion. The declaration of excommunication applied specifically to the five bishops involved in the ordination as individuals. Each one could have been returned to full communion independent of the others if that is the process that had been adopted.

Lastly, none of the SSPX priests, or the religious orders and faithful who followed the SSPX, were ever excommunicated. Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been lifted, the entire society and its followers are IN FULL COMMUNION with the Church. The claim that they are not is a slanderous lie and should not be perpetuated - especially by Catholics. The order has an "irregular standing," which is a juridic situation regarding its rights and its ability to fulfill ministerial duties. On the Vatican's side, they want to be assured that the SSPX fully accepts the authority of the Church's heirarchy (which they have never denied). On the SSPX's side, they want to be sure that they won't be forced into accepting erroneous "interpretations" of the "spirit of Vatican II" which constitute a true rupture with the Faith as it has been handed down from Christ and the Apostles.
Bulbajer
1 year ago
David W. Cooney, I agree that offering the message of Jesus to Jews isn't anti-Semitism. But the Church hasn't always condemned anti-Semitism. Many clergy and even some popes have endorsed it over the years, even if Jewish deicide and other anti-Semitic ideas weren't part of official Catholic doctrine. Skim this article: http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-31_en.html

Only in Vatican II did the church recognize the horrendous history of abuse of the Jews. If you are a member of SSPX, then I'll believe you if you say that SSPX doesn't endorse anti-Semitism. But Bishop Lefebvre made several anti-Semitic statements and only under extreme pressure from the Vatican did he take back some of them. As far as I know, the SSPX hasn't clarified its position on his anti-Semitism.
David W. Cooney
1 year ago
I cannot believe the tripe I see in both this article's title and the comments.

To begin with, Bishop Fellay stated that the preamble needed "clarifications." This does not necessarily mean that the SSPX is seeking to modify the meaning of the preamble itself, but that there are things which they consider too ambiguous and want to avoid any possibility of different interpretations being imposed once their status has been regularized. Considering that ambiguous statements are very much at the heart of their current position, it seems a very reasonable request.

I find it interesting that the author claims to know "in fact" what the preamble requires when it appears to be a closely guarded secret. If she has it, then why doesn't she publish it? It cannot be because she is "honoring the secrecy" because she gave us what she claims is the contents - "the 'Professio fidei', a requirement for anyone who assumes an ecclesiastical office." I think I'll wait for the release and hold judgment until then, other than to say that her constant reference to them as "Lefebvrians," as opposed to simply the SSPX, reveals much in regard to her own bias in the matter.

Bulbajer: The SSPX does not endorse or accept anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has constantly been condemned by the Church throughout her history. Faithfully asserting the need to evangelize Jews to try and bring them into the fullness and completion of their own faith - that is into the Catholic Church - is not anti-Semitic. The SSPX are not "separated Catholics." The declaration of excommunication only ever applied to the bishops. Those bishops tried for decades to appeal that declaration based on canon law, and the officials at the Vatican refused to give them a hearing.

Jose Thomas: Your comments reveal the ambiguity which is at the heart of many problems in the Church and is the very point that the SSPX has been trying to make. At times the wording of the Council seemed to state that other churches were on par with the Catholic Church, and at others, it clearly stated that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church of God. The decree on ecumenism clearly states that the only purpose of ecumenism is to bring those outside of the Church into full communion. The Council reaffirmed all previous councils, explicitly stating that is especially reaffirmed the teachings of Trent and Vatican I. Yet other areas *could be interpreted* as suggesting a heterodox view. Ambiguity is our enemy here.

Ryan: Other than a strict adherence to Tradition, there is no resemblance. The SSPX fully accepts all doctrines and dogmas handed on from the time of the Apostles. Also, history has shown them to be right on an increasing number of issues. They argued that the traditional Mass was not outlawed (something I heard directly from priests and bishops), lo-and-behold if the Holy Father didn't come out and say the same thing several decades later. They argued that the new Mass allowed for ambiguities and had so many options that abuses could easily be made. This has also been affirmed by bishops and cardinals.

Mr. Bryant: The SSPX are not sedevacantists like yourself (unless I misread your post about the popes). If the sedevacantists were right, then the Church is at an end. Only a pope can change canon law. Only a pope can appoint cardinals. If the last legitimate pope was Pius XII, then there are no valid cardinals today; the canon law of 1917 still applies, and the Church has come to an end. Since the only way to validly elect a pope would be to either appoint valid cardinals or change canon law, and since only a pope can do either of those things, and since there is (according to the sedevacantists) no valid pope, there is no way to chose a successor. There is no Supreme Pontiff, no Vicar of Christ, and no way to establish one. Since the continued existence of the Church depends on the continuation of the papacy, the Church is done, over, finished. No, the sedevacantists are wrong and the SSPX is right; Benedict XVI is the valid successor of Peter.

Pax Vobiscum!
Doc G
1 year ago
I keep hearing about "dogmas" of the Church that were rejected by Vatinan II. Can someone please give me a list of these rejected "dogmas"? You know, dogmas like the Trinity, Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, Etc. You know, real dogmas, Nicene Creed type dogmas. Dogmas that have to be held by all Catholics no matter where they live or to which rite they belong. Because I have to tell you, there are a lot of Maronite or Melkite Catholics (to name two Rites) who will be very surprised to find that they are heretics for not celebrating the Tridentine Mass. I would like details. Not just some vague assertions. Please, name one part of the "new" Mass that actually invalidates the Consecration, for example. 'Cause if I've been going to an invalid Mass all these years, I might as well go to the generic church here in town where you can listen to a reading from Thoreau or someone, and not even believe in God, or find a great black evangelical church with good music and not the insipid garbage I'm forced to listen to at Mass all too often now. Oh, and maybe you can tell me where the Holy Spirit was all that time Vatican II was in session. Did he step out for a potty call? Did Jesus get sick of being with us "all days even to the end of the world," and take a vacation? Inquiring minds want to know!
PaxVobiscum
1 year ago
As a member of a Traditional parish, I respect the flame that is still burning in the SSPX. I must point out however, that if there have been no valid Popes since Pope Pius the Tenth, then that means that the Bible has lied to us, and we should not even bother with the Church at all. I am personally opposed to the Novus Ordo, but it is still a valid Mass! This is what is taught by the magisterium, which is infallable. If anyone should be flexible, it is the SSPX. As I said, I love the Traditional Mass! In the ideal Catholic Church, there would be no Novus Ordo Mass only Traditional. The best way to see that this comes about however, is to have the SSPX in the Church helping with this transition.
William Bryant
1 year ago
The obstacles preventing communion between traditional Catholics, who hold to the dogmas of the Church before "Vatican II," are: the invalid "novus ordo" so-called "mass," the heretical "ecumenism" of the so-called Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all claiming the papacy since Vatican II, and their and the the Vatican II rejection of the dogmas of previous Popes and their councils. Until the current Vatican administrators embrace the true, historic faith of the Church, there can be no reconciliation.
Ryan
1 year ago
I wonder if the Lefebvrians are anything like the Athanasiusians back in 326AD. Athanasius stuck to Tradition and so did the Archbishop Lefebvre regardless of the threat of excommunication. Looking back, we would call Athanasiusians, Catholics and all of the other who 'excommunicated' him we now call them Arians. Funny how things look in the light of 2000 years of Tradition.
jose thomas
1 year ago
It is an accepted fact that the Second Vatican Council does not vary the principle but the language it is expressed. When the Church accepts many who are not even having homogenous faith into its folders under the guise that they are independent churches, why not agree with the Lefebvrians, who actually stood for Catholicism. Under the same Second Vatican Council decrees itself why not the Lefebvrians cannot be accomodated. If they stand to their principles, if they are not in conflict with pristine Catholic faith, the same could very well be accepted as a true response, and recognised as an independent church. Actually the differences by passage of time gets forgotten, Lefebvrians are of recent origin, but these so called independent churches are of ancient origin, and no body cares for the difference, rather understands the same. Let the spirit of reconciliation prevail.
Doc G
1 year ago
Please don't tell me that there's not an aspect of a good old secular style struggle for power going on here.
Bulbajer
1 year ago
I can see why people would prefer the Latin Mass, but I can't really say I'm a fan of Traditionalists (capital T). SSPX will have to change a number of things about their practices and beliefs, for instace, officially denouncing their founder's beliefs on deicide and accepting the Vatican II condemnation of anti-Semitism, before they can enter into ful communion with Rome. Let's hope that all separated Catholics, from Traditionalists to liberation theologists, reunite with the Church.

Prev1Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment