Rorate Caeli

COMMUNIQUÉ OF THE HOLY SEE: MEETING BETWEEN THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND THE FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X


On September 14, 2011, at the office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a meeting was held between His Eminence, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of this Congregation and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, His Excellency, Archbishop Luis Ladaria, S.J., Secretary of this Congregation, and Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, and His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, and Fathers Niklaus Pfluger et Alain-Marc Nély, General Assistants of the Fraternity

Following the petition addressed on December 15, 2008, by the Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father had taken the decision of lifting the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and to open at the same time doctrinal conversations with the Fraternity, aiming to overcome the difficulties and the problems of a doctrinal nature, and to achieve a healing of the existing fracture.

Obedient to the will of the Holy Father, a mixed study commission, composed of experts of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and of experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, assembled eight times for meetings that took place in Rome between the month of October 2009 and the month of April 2011. These conversations, whose objective was that of presenting and examining the major doctrinal difficulties on controversial themes, achieved their goal, which was that of clarifying the respective positions and their motivations.

Given the concerns and requests presented by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith considering the hermeneutic of rupture of the Second Vatican Council in respect of Tradition - hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005 -, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011. This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.

In the course of the same meeting, some elements were proposed regarding a canonical solution for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which would follow the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation.


________________________________________________
[Updates:]- La Stampa/Vatican Insider: On the doctrinal preamble, "its content, said the Vatican spokesman [Father Federico Lombardi], is intended to remain secret."

- Radio Vaticana: "Among the canonical solutions, the most probable one is that of an international Personal Prelature" - "preferably to an 'ordinariate' that had been proposed in 2009 to dissenting Anglicans, said Father Lombardi" (Le Figaro adds). 

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

"During the same meeting a few elements have been proposed for a canonical solution for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, which would follow the expected and possible reconciliation."

Anonymous said...

Reading the communique I am struck by the fact that due consideration is given to the titles of the SSPX members (His Excellency and Fathers) and all polemics are avoided using the diplomatic language "...overcome the difficulties and the problems of a doctrinal nature, and to achieve a reduction of the existing rupture" to describe the situation instead of the old canard "lack of full communion." This can only be taken as a hopeful sign IMO.

PEH

rodrigo said...

Now the ball is in the Society's court. For the next two hours, let's storm Heaven!

Anonymous said...

What does this mean?

Joe said...

Thank you for this speedy translation. Please God the Preamble will contain enough for the SSPX to seek formal reunion with the Holy Father.

poeta said...

Devoutly "hoped-for."

Jub Alabastro said...

Where are the rest?

beng said...

[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011.


It would be totally awesome if the Doctrinal Preamble would appear on WikiLeaks .... in english (yay!)

Jordanes551 said...

The news this morning is very auspicious.

I hope they will release the text of the doctrinal preamble (and eventually we see the publication of the proceedings of the eight theological discussions), and that we'll soon learn what was proposed regarding a canonical solution.

Today is a good day.

Jordanes551 said...

What does this mean?

It means the Holy See is hopeful that a preliminary agreement on certain fundamental principles can be achieved, and it means there is a sincere effort to resolve all of the SSPX's canonical irregularities.

Anonymous said...

This is very encouraging: "leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it".

I hope that the Society would/could accept this offer. Better deals probably will never come?

- MT

Anonymous said...

"...while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

Notice, not only can the documents of Vatican be questioned, but so too can those of the Magisterium that followed. This is good!

Anonymous said...

Is this the press release that was meant to come out? Because it says says says, and says nothing really.

Anonymous said...

I hope they will release the text of the doctrinal preamble (and eventually we see the publication of the proceedings of the eight theological discussions), and that we'll soon learn what was proposed regarding a canonical solution.

It appears that if there is an obstacle this "doctrinal preamble" may be it. From what I gather this doctrinal preamble is not something that was jointly developed by the SSPX and Rome and that is troubling. Still, we have no way of knowing how and why this document was developed in the first place. Stay tuned, folks, there is much yet to learn about this meeting.

PEH

Anonymous said...

Catholic News Service:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103642.htm

Woody said...

Obviously the devil will be in the details of the preamble, but I join others here in hoping that it will be sufficient to permit a reconciliation. As I told the Traditionalist stalwart I was with a few days ago, either the SSPX reconciles now or they may very well have to resign themselves to being in the position of the Russian Orthodox Old Believers--out of communion for 400 years with the main body of the church. Of course, his response was much like that of the Old Believers, too--"there won't be another 400 years", implying that what is critically important now is to be in the faithful remnant. Hopefully the preamble will allow membership in the remnant within the institutional structure of the Church.

If memory serves, the part about allowing future discussions was also a major point in the 1988 heads of agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, but I have not gone back to that document to check the details. When I read that several years later, for the first time, my reaction was, "so what's not to like?" Evidently it was a general lack of trust in the Roman authorities in charge of the structural solution that was a large part of the Archbishop's decision not to go forward then. Hopefully things are better now.

Joao said...

Bp. Fellay will give an exclusive interview to DICI concerning these developments. It will be published later today by DICI.

Predictably the DICI site crashed !

P.S. Bp. Williamson is not feeling very well either.

Anonymous said...

While reconciliation is devoutly desired, I have some concern that this approach may lend "support" to the more liberal cafeteria catholics who want to justify abortion or same sex marriage. If Church teaching on these points is not listed in this doctrinal preamble they will claim that those issues are subject to choice and circumstance and can be waived at will.

We will see.

Anonymous said...

Everyone I agree with Jordaness this is a good day!

Now we must keep praying the FSSPX will accept what is proposed by the Holy See.

I think the St. Michael prayer is most necessary at the moment.

As someone said earlier the enemy will try to cause trouble so let Pray to Our Blessed Lady to take care of the hearts of everyone involved and to St. Michael to keep the enemy away.

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

Anonymous said...

People as Rodrigo said:

LET'S STORM HEAVEN!!!

Rosaries and Rosaries and more Rosaries along with prayer and fasting.

Very Important!!!

Chris said...

I thought a prelature was unacceptable becaause it puts the Society at the mercy of the local bishops?

I thought they were going to offer what they gave the Anglicans. Bishop Fellay has already said that any structure must have protection from the local bishops.

As for the "doctrinal preamble" I fail to see what is missing from the Society's belief in the Traditional Faith that needs to be "agreed" to?

Chris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

"This preamble enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it."

Sounds like this means no need to "accept Vatican II" in any blanket carte blance sense. What more might be wished?

Roger Buck said...

Regarding the prelature mooted by Father Lombardi in the Catholic news story:

"Although the Vatican did not give the society a deadline, in order to move toward full reconciliation, leaders are expected to study and sign the preamble "within a few months," said Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman.

The cardinal and bishop also discussed possible "elements of a canonical solution" for the society after "the eventual and hoped-for reconciliation," said a statement issued by the Vatican after the meeting.

Father Lombardi said, "Today the most likely solution would be a personal prelature," which is a church jurisdiction without geographical boundaries designed to carry out particular pastoral initiatives.

It is headed by a prelate, who is appointed by the pope; currently the church's only personal prelature is Opus Dei."


I take it Father Lombardi is the official spokesman here?

If so, personal prelature is very striking is it not?

Potentially significantly more than an ordinariate.

Or is delirium getting to my head - and I need sobering up ...?

Chris said...

Opus Dei is a personal prelature and they need permission from the local ordinary to operate in his diocese.

I fail to see how this is feasible with the Society as 90% of bishops would not grant permission for the Society to be in their diocese if they were regularized.

poeta said...

Presumably a way could be devised to structure a personal prelature that would afford the sort of protection they seek from the local ordinaries. Perhaps the PCED could play some role as it does under Summorum Pontificum.

Anonymous said...

To understand what is truly happening here, we need look no further than the comment concerning the 'doctrinal preamble': "its content...is intended to remain secret."
We should be praying the full prayer to St. Michael, as written by Leo XIII

Roger Buck said...

Chris -

Thank you for sobering me up here!

I cannot see either how a prelature - with this restriction - could possibly work.

Obvious suicide for SSPX in countless dioceses ...

But could a personal prelature be still possiblr without this restriction ...?

I ask all this very interested indeed in the shift from talk of ordinariate to PP.

And I always was under the impression that Opus Dei had unusual freedoms bestowed on it.

Chris said...

I think the Society should withold decision until Assisi III happens. Assisi was the sign from God ABL said he was sent in order to disapprove the '88 agreement. Assisi III has the potential to completely derail the return of the Society. I think it was a horrible decision by BXVI to continue this recurring scandal to Traditionalists.

Roger Buck said...

Re:

To understand what is truly happening here, we need look no further than the comment concerning the 'doctrinal preamble': "its content...is intended to remain secret."
We should be praying the full prayer to St. Michael, as written by Leo XIII

I may still need several buckets of cold water poured on me ...

But I read this secrecy in a positive light.

The secrecy of the preamble could be there to allow a certain face-saving (on either side?) to smooth the transition?

poeta said...

The SSPX have made no secret of their vehement opposition to Assisi III, and yet the Vatican continues to speak optimistically about reconciliation. At least everyone's cards are on the table now.

Anonymous said...

I think people are missing something here, regarding Personal Prelatures and Opus Dei.

For one, Opus Dei has always had it as its own policy to ask for permission in order to be set up in a diocese. This was important until relatively recently, because the Prelate of Opus Dei was not a Bishop himself. However, after many years, the popes started raising the level of the Prelates to that of Bishop. As a result, the member of Opus Dei in a diocese probably have a canonical right to deal with the people under their ordinary. This is vague and a bit confusing, but my point here is that part of the Opus Dei phenomenon was by personal choice, and the other was because they did not have bishops of their own.

2. MUCH more importantly, there is a moot point here: The SSPX is ALREADY present in countless dioceses, so, in these places, they do not NEED to ask for permission to ENTER the diocese. They are already there. Therefore, all they need are faculties from the pope through the Ecclesia Dei commission and the SSPX priests will be able to carry out their apostolates licitly right then and there. They will never need permission from the places where they are already present. And yes, there may very well be bishops that will try to place obstacles in the way of the SSPX. However, these are the same bishops that are suffering from a terrible lack of priests and closing churches. They will not be able to close churches so quickly now; they will have to offer the SSPX the opportunity to take over such parishes. There is a demographic issue here, and we know who wins this war, for victory is on the side of church groups that have large families. There will be obstacles, but once we pass a point of demographic inflection, the parishes, the churches, and yes, the power will pass to the orthodox groups in the church, as the old, sterile order passes away. And the obstacles will cease.

As such, I do not see the issues relating to Personal Prelatures as necessarily limited to those experienced by Opus Dei. There are huge differences.

A Sinner said...

I hope what Fr Z had yesterday is true of this preamble:

"the Holy See could, for the first time, admit that these aspects fought by the 'Integrists' are not considered as 'essential' to the Catholic faith to the point of keeping outside the Church those who do not admit them. And that what is foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day."

Gratias said...

I pray that SSPX accepts this offer. I would like to attend one of their Masses. They can do so much good with their 500 priests and missions in Latin America and Asia.

Deo gratias for Pope Benedict XVI.

Anonymous said...

Recall John Allen's recent bleak column in regard to the SSPX:

"I’ve learned from hard experience that prediction is a hazardous business, but here’s one I feel safe in making: Anyone expecting this meeting to end the dispute between Rome and Écône (the Swiss headquarters of the traditionalists) is going to be disappointed.

"Though they may be heading nowhere fast, the talks have at least produced a few moments of mirth."

Mr. Allen's analysis of the "talks" that were "heading nowhere fast" is best described by one word:

Discredited.

Henry said...

"The SSPX have made no secret of their vehement opposition to Assisi III, and yet the Vatican continues to speak optimistically about reconciliation."

So what? The Church must be full of people who are opposed to Assisi-type shenanigans. Card. Ratzinger himself almost left Rome over Assisi I, and allegedly is holding Assisi III to repair the damage. Many think this is worse than a waste of time. But, again . . . So what? Since when do we all agree on everything, other than our loyalty to the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

Anonymous said...

"The SSPX have made no secret of their vehement opposition to Assisi III, and yet the Vatican continues to speak optimistically about reconciliation."

When Assisi III was announced, the "Vatican," if the "Vatican" even cared, knew the Society would condemn said meeting.

For that matter, unlike a certain bishop's Nazi Holocaust-related opinions that caught the "Vatican" by surprise (supposedly), nobody within the "Vatican" is unaware as to the Society's condemnations of the Assisi-related "interfaith" gatherings.

Pope Benedict XVI is well aware as to the Society's opposition to ecumenical/interfaith endeavors.

Tom

Cruise the Groove. said...

At the very least, the very least I pray the Holy See gives faculties to SSPX priests for confessions and marriages whilst this preamble is being considered.

Roger Buck said...

Gratitude to anonymous for this

"I think people are missing something here, regarding Personal Prelatures and Opus Dei" ... etc

Bearing in mind what anonymous has said, can anyone throw any light on this shift of talk from an ordinariate to Personal Prelature - and what it might really mean if a PP rather than an ordinariate comes into place?

Chris said...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cbisutsi.htm

"In regard to the pastoral coordination with local ordinaries, and the fruitful insertion of the Prelature Opus Dei in the local Churches, it is also established that:

a) the prior permission of the competent diocesan bishop is required for the erection of each centre of the prelature. The diocesan bishop is informed regularly about the activities of those centres and has the right to visit them, ad normam juris"

Therefore, under a "personal prelature" local bishops could forbid the creation of new Society chapels in their dioceses.

Woody said...

The secrecy of the preamble is probably a good thing, as it might allow the Society to request some clarifications after study of it, which would be harder to grant if the text were made public now. I would even venture to say that if the text is leaked, it may well be by someone who does not favor a reconciliation. We shall see.

I would very much like to see the Society back in full standing in the Church so it can further the all-important work of a kind of "Gramscianism of the Right" that needs to be done, both inside the Church and in the wider culture.

Joe B said...

I couldn't be more pleased (and happy to have been wrong) about this news. If Jordanes ever comes to North Carolina, I may have to take him to our gold panning site and see if Heaven really is trying to tell us to pay more attention to him. But until then, of course, I like speculative risk cards. That's what blogs are for, no?

So what if SSPX will encounter resistance within the Vatican? They've shown they can handle it, haven't they? SSPX can handle anything but formal suppression, which seems much less likely now. I think a direct link to the Holy Father was Archbishop Lefebvre's dream for his priests. That's what he said - to be under the Holy Father but free to fight for tradition. Whereas I had no doubts about SSPX's work, I also know that a public statement of approval from Rome will greatly help them and all of us.

I just can't get over the charity of the Holy Father in all this. It was the right thing to do, but he must be paying a dear price for it. Pray for him, too. And most of all I think we owe Our Lady a great thanks, as this shows she really is receiving our Rosaries and watching over SSPX. This could easily have been a day of mourning for us all. Instead, I now have great expectations.

Samuel J. Howard said...

I hope what Fr Z had yesterday is true of this preamble:

"the Holy See could, for the first time, admit that these aspects fought by the 'Integrists' are not considered as 'essential' to the Catholic faith to the point of keeping outside the Church those who do not admit them. And that what is foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day."


Interesting implications for dialogue with the Orthodox in terms of paring back what are defined as the essentials that must be held for union with Peter.

John McFarland said...

Notice that, per Father Lombardi, the deal that so many of you hunger for will be a secret deal.

This would be impossible to do, and make no sense if, per impossibile, it could be done.

Be that as it may, it's pretty hard to imagine any scenario in which the Society could accept the famed two-pager, whatever it says.

If it requires acceptance of religious freedom, ecumenism and collegiality, the Society is bound to reject it, since by the Society's lights this is a new gospel.

If (as seems most likely) it is an excerise in equivocation, the Society is bound to reject it on grounds that it doesn't know what it is being asked to subscribe to.

If it seeks to treat the Council as dogmatic, the Society is bound to reject it because it rejects the notion that a "pastoral" council (whatever that may mean) has any authority except when it repeats doctrine settled before 1962.

If it just lays out the general obligations of obedience to the pope and the hierarchy, I suppose that Society could sign that, although it would have to go on to make it clear that this solves absolutely nothing. From the Society's perspective, its ability to obey the lawfully constituted authorities requires those authorities to accept the obedience of faith; and Fr. de Cacqueray's recent denunciation of Assisi III, and Fr. de la Rocque's recent radical critique of the theology of Pope John Paul III, both explicitly approved by Bishop Fellay, make clear that in the Society's judgment, that obedience is at a very low ebb.

P.S. My office computer, which until now has never blocked dici.org, is blocking it as pornography. I guess that the site has been hacked, rather than crashed.

Jim said...

Joe B wrote:

I just can't get over the charity of the Holy Father in all this. It was the right thing to do, but he must be paying a dear price for it. Pray for him, too. And most of all I think we owe Our Lady a great thanks, as this shows she really is receiving our Rosaries and watching over SSPX. This could easily have been a day of mourning for us all. Instead, I now have great expectations.


You made a great point here. While we can still disagree with some of the decisions made by the Holy Father, can anyone see Paul VI or John Paul II making all of these attempts of reconciliation with the SSPX? Who would have beleived that he would have given them everything they asked?

The role of Our Blessed Mother is immeasurable in all of this. She is indeed the Mediatrix of all graces. May she watch over and guide His Excellency Bishop bernard Fellay as he ponders his decision.

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

CredoUtIntelligam said...

Does anyone find it puzzling that a document stating what one must believe in order to be in "full" communion with the Catholic Church is going to be kept secret?

I understand the need for discretion while negotiations are taking place, but this is a matter of doctrine. People need a criterion to guide their consciences in these confusing times.

Tradical said...

@Credo
- Given the animosity aimed at the SSPX I would have been surprised if the 'preamble' had been released.

This prevents pressure from outside orgs (such as media etc).

Anonymous said...

Well, I have made up my own mind. Whether they go back in or stay right where they are, I am going to them. I've had enough with my allegedly Catholic diocese.

SSPX - hold onto your hats! Here comes Delphina!! Move over John McFarland.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

The wording of this document is ASTONISHINGLY respectful and considerate of the Society's position. I have no idea who authored this, but whoever they were was compelled to quite comprehensively comprehend the difficulties of the situation.

I am hopeful, but the ball cannot be said to be in the Society's court at all unless the "Doctrinal Preamble" is as comprehending of the situation as this publicized announcement seems to be. If that is NOT the case, Fellay is going to respond accordingly.

Tim said...

Bishop Fellay's views about the meeting are published at DICI:
Interview with Bishop Fellay

Anonymous said...

I venture to guess on what the content of the "Preamble" states:
It shall reafirm that VII was an infallible Council and so were the subsequent Magisterium pronouncemts, meaning of course the contents of the various encyclicals of PVI, JPII, and BXVI and demand that SSPX accept that it is so.
CM

Michael J. Miller said...

The 9/14 press release was issued jointly by the CDF and the SSPX, not by underlings in the Vatican bureaucracy. In a wide-ranging conference on August 15, Bp. Fellay noted that there is more sympathy for the SSPX among those in the Church who have real authority than among the paper-pushers.

Anonymous said...

Let's not get too bogged down about the Preamble - it has been stated that it is confidential and will be kept as such. However, if there is anything in the Preamble that seems to go against the Faith, the SSPX could rewrite those passages, sign it and send it back. That would make it clear that it accepts what can be accepted and rejects what cannot be accepted according to Tradition, that is, what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from infallible statements of the perennial magisterium. Then, the ball would be back in Rome's court where it belongs IMO. One can expect, I think, the SSPX to go over this document with the utmost care.

For myself, I cannot believe such a document was presented to the SSPX on this day. After all the doctrinal discussions that have been held, the Holy See still needs to know where the SSPX stands with respect to doctrine? I don't buy it. Also, when is P.K.T.P. going to take Lombardi to task for his remarks about a "personal prelature"?

PEH

Anonymous said...

Joe B you are absolutely right.

What would we do without the the intercession of OUR MOTHER IN HEAVEN.

BLESSED LADY THANK YOU FOR ALL THE PRAYERS YOU OFFER TO YOUR DIVINE SON ON OUR BEHALF!

MAGNIFICAT

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour; For he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Because He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name; And His mercy is from generation to generation, on those who fear Him. He has shown might with His arm, He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, His servant, mindful of His mercy -- Even as he spoke to our fathers -- to Abraham and to his posterity for ever. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 17.12:

Why would anyone want an N.O. in a S.S.P.X church? The S.S.P.X priests, according to Rome, "do not exercise any legitimate ministry". Since they do not exercise a legitimate ministry, they have no right to offer Mass according to its normative Rite. The fact that, theoretically, they have no right to offer it according to any other Rite is beside the point.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, my last comment was meant for another thread.

On the meaning of the texts:

For once, It is I who counsel caution. We simply don't have any idea how the S.S.P.X will react until we know more. No idea at all.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Chris:

I personal prelalture IS unacceptable but the nasty term appears only because the idiot journalists can't keep it out of their vacant minds. Notice that it appears in the *question*, not Bishop Fellay's answer.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that this is a good day. We don't know that yet. This is, rather, an intellectual day. The Pope, who is a true intellectual, has proposed principles and guidelines for interpreting Vatican II documents. If these principles are erroneous, an acceptance of them could lead to a logical need to accept very bad interpretations. We need to know more.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Just as it was in 2008, it is a personal prelature with independence from local Ordinaries and with the faculty of erecting societies of apostolic life which will depend on the prelate as their major superior.

Nathaniel said...

Thank you, P.K.T.P.

I agree completely. We can pray in hope, but we know very little at this point.

Bishop Fellay's comment about the conflating of the doctrinal with the pastoral should give pause. It is precisely the admixture of these two concepts that made so much of the post-conciliar revolution possible.

We pray. We storm heaven.

Liturgical Cow said...

I think the wording is very sober. It leave open the door for "legitimate discussion."
There are boundaries for a discussion to be legitimate.
The second thing is, it does not say that because we need to discuss it, we are free to disregard, reject, or unbounded by what the Council and Magisterium already declare.
We may discuss it, and our discussion my lead to a better appreciation or better formulation, but in no way we are free to disobey.

Bernonensis said...

Since the communique clearly states that it's a matter of discussing and explaining statements of the magisterium that followed the Council, this looks like an admission by Rome that there is no problem with the SSPX's understanding of the magisterium before the Council. It follows from this that the SSPX's objections, founded as they are on these earlier teachings, are justified.