ROME  INSISTS
Number CCXXXI (231)   17 December 2011

At about the same time that Bishop Fellay was letting it be known that the SSPX will ask for clarification of the Doctrinal Preamble (Rome’s reaction to the doctrinal discussions running from  2009 to spring of this year), one of Rome’s four theologians taking part in those discussions, Monsignore Fernando Ocariz, published an essay “On Adhesion to the Second Vatican Council”. His timing shows that we are not out of the woods, on the contrary !  But let us look at his arguments, which are at least clear.

In his introduction he argues that the “pastoral” Council was nonetheless doctrinal. What is pastoral is based on doctrine. What is pastoral seeks to save souls, which involves doctrine. The Council docuмents contain much doctrine.  Good !  The Monsignore is at least not going to dodge doctrinal accusations levelled at the Council by pretending the Council was not doctrinal, as have done many of its defenders.

Then on the Church’s Magisterium in general, he says that Vatican II consisted of the Catholic bishops who have “the charism of truth, the authority of Christ and the light of the Holy Spirit”. To deny that, he says, is to deny something of the very essence of the Church. But, Monsignore, what about the mass of Catholic bishops going along with the Arian heresy under Pope Liberius ?  Exceptionally, even the near unanimity of Catholic bishops can go doctrinally astray. If it happened once, it can happen again. It happened at Vatican II, as its docuмents show.

He proceeds to argue that the Council’s non-dogmatic and non-defined teachings nevertheless require of Catholics their assent, called “religious submission of will and intellect”, which is “an act of obedience well-rooted in confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium”. Monsignore, to the Conciliar as to the Arian bishops no doubt God offered all the assistance they needed, but they refused it, as is shown by the departure of their docuмents from his Tradition.

Finally Monsignore Ocariz begs the question by arguing that since the Catholic Magisterium is continuous and Vatican II was the Magisterium, therefore its teachings can only be continuous with the past. And if they look like a break with the past, then the Catholic thing to do is to interpret them as though there is no such break, as does for instance Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”. But Monsignore, these arguments can be turned around. In fact there is a doctrinal break, as is clear from examining the Conciliar docuмents themselves. (For instance, is there (Vatican II), or is there not (Tradition), a human right not to be prevented from spreading error ?) Therefore Vatican II was not the Church’s true Magisterium, and the Catholic thing is to show that there is indeed this break with Tradition, as did Archbishop Lefebvre, and not to pretend that there is no such break.

The Monsignore’s last word is to claim that only the Magisterium can interpret the Magisterium. Which takes us right back to Square One.

Dear readers, Rome is not by any means out of the woods.   Heaven help us.

Kyrie eleison.  
 

Responses:

1) I don't care whether Rome is out of the woods or not.  I am worried about the SSPX getting out of the woods (i.e., Rome's clutches);

2) Bishop Fellay pretends the outcome of Albano was to adhere to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (and only because he ran into resistence regarding his attempted sellout......which is apparently not yet dead);

3) The principles of ABL were that there would be no discussion of a canonical solution whilst the doctrinal issues remained unresolved;

4) But according to Fr. Morgan (District Superior of Great Britain/Scandinavia) and Fr. Bouchancourt (District Superior South America), the doctrinal preamble completely ignored the charade of 2 years of doctrinal negotiations, and instead insisted upon the steps the SSPX must take in order to arrive at a practical solution (steps such as accepting the new catechism, etc)!

5) Bishop Fellay: How can it truthfully be said you have decided to abide by the principles of ABL when your talks are now centered precisely on a practical solution that ignores all the doctrinal issues!!!

6) It appears the attempt to sell out the SSPX is still moving full steam ahead with Bishop Fellay's "request for clarifications" (i.e., counter-proposal) to the doctrinal preamble (which contained no doctrine)!

With regard to the stupid comments of Msgr Ocariz:

1) "The council was pastoral, but was based on doctrine."  Answer: What doctrine?  There were doctrines there, yes.  But certainly noc Catholic doctrines.  The only Catholic doctrine was present was when it was being mutilated and muddied.  "Lex dubia non obligat."  "A dubious law does not oblige."  If the docuмents are so confused that (as he later says) only the magisterium can understand and interpret them, then according to lex dubia non obligat (a longstanding principle of moral theology), I can flush the whole works down the toilet they came from and stick with the religion that came from Jesus Christ, and developed under true pastors of souls for 1962 years!

   In fairness to Bishop Fellay, the leaked letter of Fr. Bouchancourt did mention that the SSPX would make a doctrinal response to the preamble and deliver it in a few weeks "which Rome will not accept."

   So it could be that Bishop Fellay is not in fact conducting discussions regarding a practical solution, but rather returned a doctrinal response he wants Rome to consent to.

   My instincts, in light of all the secrecy, suppression of Bishop Williamson, etc tell me otherwise, but just wanted to be fair.

Quote from: Seraphim

  In fairness to Bishop Fellay, the leaked letter of Fr. Bouchancourt did mention that the SSPX would make a doctrinal response to the preamble and deliver it in a few weeks "which Rome will not accept."

   So it could be that Bishop Fellay is not in fact conducting discussions regarding a practical solution, but rather returned a doctrinal response he wants Rome to consent to.

   My instincts, in light of all the secrecy, suppression of Bishop Williamson, etc tell me otherwise, but just wanted to be fair.

You're required to be more than fair - you're required, as we all are, to think well of another unless it is impossible.  All talk of Bishop Fellay "selling out" is unjustified by the data, and therefore objectively sinful.

Let us be thought fools if proven wrong, rather than as unChristian even when shown to be right by subsequent events.

Gertrude-

   On the one hand, your comment is well-taken (i.e., I cannot argue with the doctrine which underlies it).

   On the other hand, we traditionalists have learned that blind obedience can be detrimental to salvation.

   I cannot agree with your assertion that worries about a sellout by Bishop Fellay are unjustified by the data:

1) He has earned a certain degree of suspicion by keeping these proceedings -which affect all of us directly- secret.  Sure, it is his perogatiove to do so, but then he cannot blame us for questioning the motive to do so, in light of the insufficient reason he has given for doing so;

2) We learned that Fr. Pfluger tried to sell the deal to the priests of the German District, and when an old retired priest stood up and rejected it (to applause), Fr Pfluger went white ans silent.  This heavily implies that Bishop Fellay wanted to take the deal.  And if so, then it is not out of line to worry that he might still be trying to make it happen;

3) We have him refusing to show the actual preamble to any of the district superiors.  Why?  The stated reason (insulting to them) was that he feared a press leak.  Is it so out of line to suspect that he may be painting a more favorable picture to the superiors than is warranted by the text itself, without actually accusing him of doing so?

   Therefore, I would accept your reprimand to make an effort to think well of others.  That is perfectly Christian.  But in light of the strange and secret goings-on surrounding the whole ordeal, I would stop short of admitting sin in the matter.

-Seraphim

Therefore Vatican II was not the Church’s true Magisterium, and the Catholic thing is to show that there is indeed this break with Tradition, as did Archbishop Lefebvre, and not to pretend that there is no such break.

How can one hold this position (VCII was not the Church's true Magisterium) and not be a sede?

Quote from: Seraphim

  I cannot agree with your assertion that worries about a sellout by Bishop Fellay are unjustified by the data:

1) He has earned a certain degree of suspicion by keeping these proceedings -which affect all of us directly- secret.  Sure, it is his perogatiove to do so, but then he cannot blame us for questioning the motive to do so, in light of the insufficient reason he has given for doing so;

2) We learned that Fr. Pfluger tried to sell the deal to the priests of the German District, and when an old retired priest stood up and rejected it (to applause), Fr Pfluger went white ans silent.  This heavily implies that Bishop Fellay wanted to take the deal.  And if so, then it is not out of line to worry that he might still be trying to make it happen;

3) We have him refusing to show the actual preamble to any of the district superiors.  Why?  The stated reason (insulting to them) was that he feared a press leak.  Is it so out of line to suspect that he may be painting a more favorable picture to the superiors than is warranted by the text itself, without actually accusing him of doing so?

   Therefore, I would accept your reprimand to make an effort to think well of others.  That is perfectly Christian.  But in light of the strange and secret goings-on surrounding the whole ordeal, I would stop short of admitting sin in the matter.

-Seraphim

Mate, I'm not trying to convict you of sin, far from it!

As long as you accept the principle, that's great.  Your conscience is your business.

I am not convinced that the secrecy is not thought to be necessary by Bishop Fellay.  Indeed, anybody with any management experience knows how necessary it is.

I have seen the story about Fr. Pfluger also.  What is the source, and how reliable is it?

Bishop Fellay read the text to the men present.  I don't think anybody thought that he was perverting it in any way.  He knew, and all present knew, that somebody would likely leak it if copies were given out, so he didn't do that.  And guess what?  Despite it being made clear that no news was to be published about any of it until "rome" was informed, Bishop Tissier went to the USA and told people they were rejecting the Preamble, Bishop Fellay went to the Philippines and told people the same thing, Fr. Morgan published a detailed newsletter describing the meeting and saying that the Preamble would be rejected, and Fr. Bouchacourt did likewise in Argentina.  Was Bishop Fellay mistaken in thinking they couldn't be trusted with the text?  He couldn't be trusted himself to keep the decision secret, it seems!  :-)

...or could it be that, having incurred such opposition and disobedience by those who wanted the world to know what was on the table, he himself needed then to be seen to be on the winning side?

Just askin:)

...or could it be that, having incurred such opposition and disobedience by those who wanted the world to know what was on the table, he himself needed then to be seen to be on the winning side?

Just askin:)

Do you get the bit about it being unlawful to judge intentions negatively without complete proof, or not?

If this is meant to be a joke without any serious content, it is ill-placed.

My own understanding is that Bishop Fellay only made available the parts of the Doctrinal Preamble that he wanted to make available.

That's not what Fr. Morgan and Fr. Bouchacourt stated in the letters.  What's your source?

2) We learned that Fr. Pfluger tried to sell the deal to the priests of the German District, and when an old retired priest stood up and rejected it (to applause), Fr Pfluger went white ans silent.  This heavily implies that Bishop Fellay wanted to take the deal.  And if so, then it is not out of line to worry that he might still be trying to make it happen;

So nobody has a source for the story about Fr. Pfluger either?

If you've met Fr. Pfulger, you'd know what an amiable man he is, a man who does not appear capable of making an enemy.  He is also a deeply traditional priest.

The story as told seems to me to tell us nothing about Fr. Pfluger's views at all.  He could have told the audience what the Preamble says, just as Bishop Fellay did at Albano, without comment, and then somebody under stress challenged him with the implication that he was trying to sell it to them and demanded that he admit or deny this allegation.  Any honourable man who was not guilty of such a thing, and who had given no sign that that was his intention, would be appalled by it.  I would be.  Treating such an intervention with silence might have been the only way he had of not reacting with anger.

But we really have no reliable data at all, do we?  We have no source for the story that will vouch for the truth of it.  It's one of those rumours that are leaped upon by those who find them congenial, because it confirms their thesis.

Anybody who is attracted by the thesis that Fellay and Co. are working on a sell-out should be clear that we are not permitted by the law of the Gospel to believe ill of another without clear proof.  

Quote from: Seraphim

   Bishop Fellay is a public figure, and is therefore held to a more rigorous degree of permissible scrutiny than most.

   Please go cry somewhere else.

I'm not crying.  I'm stating Catholic principles and then reasoning upon them.  You are refusing to apply Catholic principles and what you are doing is therefore, objectively considered, sinful.

   Please provide a citation from a manual of moral theology that declares the sinfulness of speculating.