Hermeneutic
Fr. Paul McDonald
Diocese of Saint Catharines (Ontario)
The recent statement of the Vatican Secretariat of State has said that for "a future recognition of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X" there is required on the part of the Fraternity, as "an indispensable condition", "the full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium of [the conciliar and post-conciliar] Popes".In this context the word "magisterium" is ambiguous for it can mean the office and authority to teach, which is the first and proper meaning, or as an analogous meaning, the content of the teaching.
But the content is of varying weights. It varies from the infallible teaching on the impossibility of female ordination to the teaching of general audiences which is not formally addressed to the universal Church at all.
Thanks to a merciful Providence, the statement refers also to "le questioni ancora aperte", "the questions that are still open".
Some think that there must be an unqualified internal assent, to every assertion of the Council.
Vatican II (in its texts) does not make an idol of itself or claim "superinfallibillity", or "superdogma" status (then-Cardinal Ratzinger), as do on its "behalf" too many contemporary churchmen.
The exaggerated view can be found, for example, in Mr. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter who recently wrote about the Society of St. Pius X:
"Lifting the excommunication gets the traditionalists in the door, but it does not mean they have arrived. If they are to be fully reintegrated, they must accept official Catholic teaching, including religious freedom and respect for other religions."
And the French Bishops said in regard to this that "Vatican II is not negotiable".
I argue that *according to the Council itself*, much of Vatican II, according to the divine law is in fact negotiable. This is because much of what the Council decided and declared is not "essential" or dogmatic.
For a baptized Christian to become Catholic, after praying with those present the Nicene Creed, he adds:
And I *believe* everything
which the holy Catholic Church
believes [and]
teaches
And proclaims to be REVEALED by God. [My emphasis.]
The doctrine on the social right to religious liberty of Vatican II was not revealed by God nor did the Council say it was. And it most certainly was not defined dogmatically as such.
Therefore, to be Catholic or to become Catholic it is not necessary to hold this doctrine.
After all, as it says in the decree on ecumenism of Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio, #18,
«...this Sacred Council solemnly repeats the declaration of previous Councils and Roman Pontiffs, that for the restoration or the maintenance of unity and communion it is necessary "to impose no burden beyond what is essential".»
What is essential is what is infallible.
Or again, what is "essential" can hardly be an "open question".
Or again, what is "essential" can hardly be an "open question".
The protocol of 1988 granted Monseigneur Lefebvre to be a Catholic, an Archbishop-in-good-standing, while being in a state of doubt, even if respectful, towards certain conciliar and post-conciliar positions which seem "hard to reconcile with Tradition".
The same must be substantially granted to the SSPX. The same is the right of every member of the Faithful.
