Thursday, November 10, 2011

The path to Rome

The Lefebvrists haven't rejected the Vatican's offer, says Bernard Fellay. 

The superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X intervened to stop the news leak concerning a break with the Vatican over negotiations for the reentry of the ultra-traditionalist schismatic group into the Church. 

“We haven't rejected the text that was presented to us by the Holy See”, assures Fellay.

If the reconciliation were to take place, the superior of the Fraternity of St. Piux X would lead home a group of 200 seminarians and 450 priests. 

And in a period of vocational shortage, that's no small thing. 

After the meeting of Lefebvrist superiors that took place in Albano at the beginning of October, “several comments appeared in the newspapers about the response Msgr. Bernard Fellay must give the Roman proposal of September 14, 2011”, when the Archbishop Lefebvre's successor met in the Vatican with the heads of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

For now, nothing leads one to believe that the Catholic ultra-traditionalists won't return to the fold.

Also because, according to the worst estimates, it is only a small part of the Lefebvrists who wouldn't accept Rome's proposal, a minority that would thus not participate in the reentry. 

The initial step was the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, the calling card with which Benedict XVI put on paper his desire not to betray tradition, especially in the field of the liturgy. Because the liturgy is the Church, and how it prays reveals what it believes. 

Bernard Fellay has been, since 1994 (and will be so until 2018) the superior general of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Consecrated bishop by Lefebvre in 1988, he ascended in just a few years to heights of the fraternity. 

He saw Lefebvre die after the latter had lain in a coma for a week. 

Fellay is the leader of the most moderate spirit of the Lefebvrists. The opposite of Msgr. Richard Williamson, who instead represents the most intransigent wing of the Fraternity, which feels that it would “never, ever” come to an agreement with Rome. 

“Remember”, the note released today continues, “that only the general house of the Fraternity of St. Pius X is qualified to publish an official communication or an authorized comment on this issue”. 
 
After the meeting in Albano, the Lefebvrists had communicated that their leadership would study the “doctrinal preamble” presented by the Holy See to “present, within a reasonable amount of time, an answer to the Roman proposals”. 

The preamble's contents remain classified. The German Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, Fellay's first assistant, specified in a recent interview that “the proposed text has been corrected by our side”. 

In recent days, moreover, the superior of the British district of the Lefebvrists, Paul Morgan,  revealed in a letter to his flock some details of the meeting with the Roman Curia. He accused Rome of “not recognizing the rupture between the teachings of the past and those of Vatican II” and the Vatican proposals of containing “all the elements the Society has always rejected”.

For what concerns the meeting in Albano, “those present agreed that the doctrinal preamble was unacceptable and that the time has certainly not come for reaching a practical agreement, since the doctrinal issues remain unresolved”. 

If the liturgy is the heart of the Lefebvrist's dissent with regard to Rome, the differences of opinion seem to be greater that what the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is able to resolve. 

The Lefebvrists are requesting a direct revision of the conciliar texts – and not only to denounce their incorrect hermeneutics – beginning with the declaration “Dignitatis Humanae”, dedicated to religious freedom. 

In it, according to the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Church places herself in a state of submission to a civil authority, which must grant it the right to freely express herself. 

According to the Lefebvrists, it should be the other way around: it is the state that must subject itself to the Catholic faith and recognize it as the state religion.