In the next few days, the Society of Saint Pius X is expected to give a response to the Holy See’s proposal, delivered to the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay.
The signs being sent out by Ecône, the Lefebvrian headquarters, are anything but positive and it seems unlikely the “doctrinal preamble” prepared by the Vatican will be accepted. (http://www.dici.org/actualites/sermon-de-mgr-fellay-pour-limmaculee-conception-8-decembre-2011-econe/): Last 8 December, during the homily for the feast of the Immaculate Conception, Mgr. Fellay stated that the Order could not accept the preamble as it was, and said: “You will have heard that Rome has made a proposal saying “we are prepared to recognise you;” the problem is, there is always a condition. And whichever way you phrase it, the bottom line is still the same: we are required to accept the Second Vatican Council. In short, the situation is the following: they have told us “yes, you can criticise the Second Vatican Council, but on one condition: that you accept it anyway.” But what we are saying is: “how can we give a criticism in retrospect?” I think this is an honest summary of the current situation.”
He made this statement just a few weeks after giving an interview which the Vatican did not take kindly to.
As you will recall, the doctrinal preamble proposed by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is presided by Cardinal William Levada and led by Mgr. Guido Pozzo, asked the Lefebvrians to sign the “Professio Fidei”.
This is a requirement for any person wishing to occupy an ecclesiastical office; that is, to accept the essential aspects of being Catholic. The profession involves three required degrees of assent and distinguishes between revealed truths, dogmatic declarations and regular teachings of the Church.
The Catholic Magisterium states that Catholics are called to ensure “religious respect of intellect and will” for the teachings that the Pope and the College of Bishops “propose when they practice their authentic teachings,” even if these are not proclaimed in a dogmatic way, as in the case of most of the Magisterium’s documents.
Last 2 December, “L’Osservatore Romano”, the Holy See’s official newspaper, published an article by the theologian Fernando Ocáriz - Vicar General of the Opus Dei and a member of the Vatican delegation that acts as main player in doctrinal dialogue with the Society of Saint Pius X – who pointed out that although the Second Vatican Council did not define any new dogmas and despite having been a pastoral care council, neither of these facts diminish its value.
The fact that “an act in the Church’s Magisterium” - Mr. Ocáriz wrote - is not practiced through the charisma of infallibility, does not mean that it should be considered “fallible” in the sense of it communicating a “provisional doctrine” or certain “authoritative opinions.” Mr. Ocáriz explained that the Second Vatican Council has the charisma and the authority of the entire episcopate gathered around Peter and under Peter’s leadership “to teach Catholic faithful across the world.”
To deny this “would be to deny part of the essence of the Catholic Church.”
In the article, he also explained that “of course not all the points stated in the Council’s documents have the same doctrinal value, and thus, not all of them require the same degree of conformity.”
By presenting its “doctrinal preamble”, the Holy See showed that it was prepared to accept potential modifications or clarifications (though not major ones), to the text, if the Lefebvrians were not sure about certain points.
But after the statement made by Mgr. Fellay, talks seem to have reached another stalemate. Rumour has it that in the coming days, the Society could present a new counter-proposal in which it will clearly state that Lefebvrians are not asked to give their assent to conciliar documents that are to do with collectiveness, ecumenism and religious freedom.
Should this happen, Fellay may present the agreement as a Lefebvrian victory over Rome and keep quiet about the ongoing internal opposition to the agreement.
There are, however, those who claim that Mgr. Fellay’s public declarations and criticisms were made precisely because of the need to keep a lid on internal opposition. But the aim is to conclude the process by accepting the substance of the preamble.
The Holy See did in fact explain that acceptance of the “Professio Fidei” does not by any means mean closing the debate around the interpretation of certain details of the Council.
However, it is clear that the Vatican’s leaders are not prepared to give canonical recognition to bishops and priests who do not accept the lowest common denominator required of those who take up an ecclesiastical office.
During his homily on 8 December, Fellay said “the spirit of the world has entered the Church.
So we are not just up against external enemies but against a non Catholic spirit that has wormed its way into the Church. This change, this spirit’s intrusion into the Church, became apparent after the Second Vatican Council. It is a great mystery; it is as if the devil had stepped foot inside a sanctuary. One shudders at the thought.”
It is like an illness - the bishop went on to say – that has invaded a person’s body.” According to the Society’s Superior, the point has come where “the extent of the problem has become apparent.”
And “one has to admit that Rome has made an effort with regards to us.” “But if Rome tells us to accept anyway, we simply cannot.” The Lefebvrian bishop therefore, affirmed that the Church’s problem is not the Society’s dissent, but the existence of a non Catholic spirit that has made its way into the Church.
Fellay’s words echo those pronounced by Paul VI – a Pope whom Lefebvrians certainly did not have warm feelings towards – in a homily said in 1972.
In it, he had said: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God. It was believed that brighter days lay ahead for the history of the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Instead, what came were storm clouds and darker days.”
In an interview with a philosopher friend of his, Jean Guitton, he said: “What strikes me when I think of the Catholic world is that within Catholicism, a non Catholic way of thinking seems to be prevailing and in the future this could become the dominant force. But this will never be representative of the Church’s thinking. All that is needed is a small flock; however small this may be.”
The difference is that while the Pope spoke of this intrusion during the post-Council period, when the period of crisis and protests came, Fellay and the Society of the Saint Pius X blamed everything on the Council.
It will take a day or two for the Lefebvrians to give their response, having taken all the time they considered necessary to give a reply.
However, the time has come now for Fellay to adopt a clear position.