We thank a priestly source who first sent this analysis of the current situation in the Holy See-SSPX dialogue, written by Jean-Paul Guénois, of French daily Le Figaro, now translated by La Stampa's Vatican Insider. We post this for the historical record of events.
Will Benedict XVI accept the petitions of the Integrists? [Benoît XVI va-t-il accepter les requêtes des intégristes? - original title]
I see two fundamentally opposed readings from the interview given by Mgr Fellay, superior of the Saint Pius X Brotherhood regarding the negotiations underway with Rome. Some recall that he deems inadmissible, in its present state, the “Doctrinal preamble” that was presented to him last September 14 as basis of a framework agreement for a possible return into the Catholic Church. The others, that he is amending – as requested moreover by the Holy See – this working document, to pursue negotiations according to the method agreed upon to arrive, step by step, at an agreement.
I am very careful not to take sides. At the moment, everything is going to depend on the Roman response to Mgr Fellay’s response.
And nothing indicates that the Holy See will not give him satisfaction to the extent where, up to now, according to the will of Benedict XVI, all his requests were granted (removal of excommunications, standardisation of the mass according to the old rite, theological confrontation on the Vatican Council II). And at what price! Is it necessary to remind you of the damage caused by the Williamson affair? In this sense, to some degree, Benedict XVI who wants reconciliation, no longer has anything to lose.It is also known – it is a paradoxical fact of this pursuit for a compromise – that Rome accepts the near certain disagreement regarding the Vatican Council II! It was duly observed, I would even say scientifically observed, after the famous theological discussions between experts from the two sides on the subject of the break, the Vatican Council II.
It is this point that is misunderstood from the outside. Many consider that this disagreement, for which Mgr Fellay’s interview gives a precise image, represents a breaking point while it represents for Rome a starting point. It is with full knowledge of the facts, on the basis of this disagreement that the “theological preamble” was proposed to Mgr Fellay.From that time on, the really serious, historical part begins.If Rome goes in the direction of the new requests from Mgr Fellay - and the Holy See that is not a novice when it comes to negotiations – puts itself at risk by proposing this progressive method of common clarification of a text, then the turning point on “the hermeneutics” of the continuity regarding the Vatican Council II, carried by Benedict XVI, will no longer be an objective but a major undertaking by the pontificate of the Catholic Church.
Not that the Catholic Church is going back on the Vatican Council II as Mgr Fellay wishes it would do, but it would put into perspective the impact of portions of its contents. And this within the framework of a “legitimate discussion” – a key and new concept that appeared in favour of these recent negotiations with Ecône.
In other words, that would not only mark “the victory of the fundamentalists over the progressionists” but the end of a certain “sacredness” of the Vatican Council II in the Catholic Church and the beginning of a reconciliation – it will be long – with its recent past and its “tradition”. It is in any case exactly what Benedict XVI is aiming for.It remains for the Lefebvrist side to join in this historical understanding of the current Pope.
It is in their favour since there is no other member possibly eligible from the current College of Cardinals. This opportunity will therefore not present itself again for them. If they do not come back, the notion of “schism” disputed by the Lefebvrists, will inevitably resume a consistency over the years even if it will always be canonically discussed by the paper. Sooner or later it will be necessary in fact to ordain new bishops without the support of Rome.
Mgr Fellay’s interview indicates that he is aware of this issue. Aware also that the mission that he has assigned to himself of resisting in the name of “tradition” inside or outside the Church has not only gained in credibility but also in... reality. Whether you are for or against, or indifferent, it is necessary to truly recognise it as an objective fact.
Of course this battle does not involve the whole Catholic Church, it is often characterised as a “French thing” in Rome. But it is symbolic of the current evolution of the Catholic Church and, in this respect, it is not commonplace or anecdotal.
It is enough to realise the impact the announcement will have, positive or negative, on the outcome of these discussions: Negative, it will be read as one of the major failures of the pontificate, not to mention the failure of the pontificate from a human perspective of course.Positive, it will be read as a major turning point for the Catholic Church at the beginning of the 21st century.In this perspective, the “room” for manoeuvring and influencing that worries the Lefebvrists so much if they reintegrated into the bosom of the Catholic Church would be, obviously, more important inside than outside the Church.Since it is also necessary to realise the consequences of a refusal: what future credibility would the struggle of this movement have in which this Pope has made so much progress at the price of his own reputation, if he closed the door on it again in the end? This alienation, superb in the Latin sense, would risk losing all his hearers which is however the raison d'être of the Lefebvrists since they are eager to give witness to those around them and in the Church of a certain way "of being Catholic".
The protagonists of these negotiations know all this. Without offering an opinion on the outcome, it seems to me, in any case, too early to think that it is in the process of failing. But I am well aware that a possible agreement will play out under the wire.
