Alejandro Bermúdez has some interesting comments here regarding the meeting of February 13 (he does not offer true news, though, and his main point is related to the very same prelate who has been showing up repeatedly in the past few days...).
Anyway, after mentioning the pope's epoch-making speech of December 22, 2005, he ends up with this: "much of the ball in this is now on the Lefebvrists’ court."
---
Well, at first, I could agree. But while this blog was (I am pretty sure of this) the one which covered most extensively the epoch-making speech of December 22 (not less than 7 different posts on it -- see here), it has hardly been commented upon by its direct listeners (the Roman Curia), nor has it been echoed by the ordinaries around the world. It was completely ignored by the liberal (and even the moderate) Catholic media and blogs, but it has been widely praised by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (see it mentioned here, in the interview of its Superior General; and in this extensive comment of the newsletter of the FSSPX District of France) -- so one can hardly say they were not responsive to the speech.
I agree that the address was also intended as a compte rendu to Traditional Catholics; but it was particularly intended as a warning to those people who regard themselves as "the true Spirit of Vatican II". They are the problem, they have taken the Church to the brink of the current abyss; their liturgical reform (and not only its "bad implementation") was the one which a certain Cardinal Ratzinger called "a fabrication, a banal product of the moment". If the "Lefebvrists" are truly "schismatics" and out of the Church (I will avoid answering this either way, each reader has his own view of the matter -- I use it as an argumentative point), then it is certainly not their fault that "the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far [has been] so difficult" (the Pontiff's own words).
So, there are two reasons why the "ball" is at this moment far from the FSSPX's "court". First, because while the conditions for dialogue are (apparently) close to their implementation, we will only know that for sure after the papal-curial meeting of late March and afterwards. Second, because, as far as Vatican II is concerned, the message of Benedict XVI, the message that the Council was no "rupture", that one does not have to "accept" Vatican II as something which changed the Faith, because the Conciliar "Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one" (Papal words), has to reach those huge portions of the Church completely drowned in the "Hermeneutics of Rupture".
At least the first part has to be implemented: in a few months we will know what, if anything concrete, was offered and then we may finally assert that the "ball is in their court".
Anyway, after mentioning the pope's epoch-making speech of December 22, 2005, he ends up with this: "much of the ball in this is now on the Lefebvrists’ court."
---
Well, at first, I could agree. But while this blog was (I am pretty sure of this) the one which covered most extensively the epoch-making speech of December 22 (not less than 7 different posts on it -- see here), it has hardly been commented upon by its direct listeners (the Roman Curia), nor has it been echoed by the ordinaries around the world. It was completely ignored by the liberal (and even the moderate) Catholic media and blogs, but it has been widely praised by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (see it mentioned here, in the interview of its Superior General; and in this extensive comment of the newsletter of the FSSPX District of France) -- so one can hardly say they were not responsive to the speech.
I agree that the address was also intended as a compte rendu to Traditional Catholics; but it was particularly intended as a warning to those people who regard themselves as "the true Spirit of Vatican II". They are the problem, they have taken the Church to the brink of the current abyss; their liturgical reform (and not only its "bad implementation") was the one which a certain Cardinal Ratzinger called "a fabrication, a banal product of the moment". If the "Lefebvrists" are truly "schismatics" and out of the Church (I will avoid answering this either way, each reader has his own view of the matter -- I use it as an argumentative point), then it is certainly not their fault that "the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far [has been] so difficult" (the Pontiff's own words).
So, there are two reasons why the "ball" is at this moment far from the FSSPX's "court". First, because while the conditions for dialogue are (apparently) close to their implementation, we will only know that for sure after the papal-curial meeting of late March and afterwards. Second, because, as far as Vatican II is concerned, the message of Benedict XVI, the message that the Council was no "rupture", that one does not have to "accept" Vatican II as something which changed the Faith, because the Conciliar "Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one" (Papal words), has to reach those huge portions of the Church completely drowned in the "Hermeneutics of Rupture".
At least the first part has to be implemented: in a few months we will know what, if anything concrete, was offered and then we may finally assert that the "ball is in their court".
