Certain Conciliar Texts Can Be Objects of “Discussion” With the SSPX, According to the Vatican

By Marie Malzac, April 7, 2016, 3:43 p.m.

Days after the meeting between Pope Francis and the superior of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, indicated that “Vatican II docuмents (should) be welcomed according to the required degree of adherence.” The acceptance of the texts on relations with other religions [Nostra Aetate] does not constitute a prerequisite for juridical recognition of the Lefebvrist society and certain questions will be able to remain “objects of discussion and clarification,” he explained to La Croix.

The meeting, on April 1, between Pope Francis and Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the Lefebvrist line, falls “within the context of the SSPX’s progression towards full reconciliation, which will come with canonical recognition of the institute,” which was explained to La Croix by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is in charge of relations with Tradition inside of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“At this moment, it is especially important to work towards creating a climate of trust ... to overcome the hardness of distrust, which is understandable after so many years of distance and fracture,” continued Archbishop Pozzo, assuring he wants to “dispel” it in order to rediscover “the reasons for unity and for promoting the integrity of the Catholic faith and the Tradition of the Church.”

Different degrees of adherence are required

For the person in charge of discussions with the SSPX, it is fitting to recall the three essential points which make a person Catholic: “adherence to the profession of faith, the bond of the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the pope.” This is what the Doctrinal Declaration will contain, “which will be submitted to the adherence of the SSPX at the appropriate time.”

“In what concerns the Second Vatican Council, the course taken in the meetings of the last years has led to an important clarification: the Second Vatican Council can be sufficiently understood only within the context of the entire Tradition of the Church and its constant magisterium,” Archbishop Pozzo specified.

“The affirmations of truths of faith and of sure Catholic doctrine contained in the Second Vatican Council docuмents must be welcomed according to the degree of required adherence,” the Italian bishop continued, who repeats the distinction between dogma and certain decrees or declarations containing “directives for pastoral action, orientations and suggestions, or exhortations of a practical-pastoral character,” as is notably the case with Nostra Aetate, in its opening to dialogue with non-Christian religions.

Not an obstacle for canonical recognition

These “will constitute and be part of, after canonical recognition, a subject of discussion and further deepening, in view towards a greater precision, in order to avoid misunderstandings or equivocations which, as we know, have become widespread in the present ecclesiastical world.”

“The difficulties raised by the SSPX regarding questions of Church-State relations and religious liberty, the practice of ecuмenism and dialogue with non-Christian religions, certain aspects of liturgical reform and their concrete application, remain objects of discussion and clarification,” Archbishop Pozzo added, “but do not constitute an obstacle to the SSPX’s canonical and juridical recognition.”

The SSPX is asked “to accept that the magisterium of the Church is the only one to whom is confided the deposit of the faith to be guarded, defended and interpreted.” “I believe this clarification can constitute a fixed point for the SSPX.”

(Marie Malzac, “Certains textes conciliaires peuvent être objet de « discussion » avec la FSSPX, selon le Vatican”, La Croix, April 7, 2016; our translation; underlining added.)

(secondary source)

Geremia,

Do you have a link?

Thank you.

If the SSPX is asked to accept what the [Conciliar] Magisterium has interpreted regarding all the points of contention then how can there be "objects of discussion" with what the [Conciliar] Magisterium has interpreted. I am confused as well!

However, when there is no distinction made between the "Conciliar Magisterium" and the Magisterium as properly understood up until the Council then I see the logic.

“The affirmations of truths of faith and of sure Catholic doctrine contained in the Second Vatican Council docuмents must be welcomed according to the degree of required adherence,”

How is this alleged "welcoming" to be shown?  

Do your own bleepin' self-promotion, Vatican.   Are you looking for press agents?  The Council was a few years ago.  The fact that not every Catholic group "welcomes" it is a sign that perhaps it's not very Catholic.  Hmmm.

Are you in love with Our Lord Jesus Christ or with an ecuмenical council?  With the Truths of the Faith or with political loyalty oaths?  Which is it? Because what you seem to be saying is not a very good witness to the faith.  It's the promotion of a modern ideology, frozen in a narrow period of time, in preference to the ancient and sustained deposit of faith.

the Italian bishop continued, who repeats the distinction between dogma and certain decrees or declarations containing “directives for pastoral action, orientations and suggestions, or exhortations of a practical-pastoral character,” as is notably the case with Nostra Aetate, in its opening to dialogue with non-Christian religions.

Does this mean that said Italian bishop will be fine with a nominal acceptance of the vague theology in the docuмents but will not require pastoral action (about that) on the part of the SSPX priests?

What is all of this talk of accepting the Magisterium as the final word?

Vatican II did not accept the Magisterium, its docuмents and proposals are in defiance of it.

I thought one of the last acts of Pope Ratzinger before his resignation was to tell Bishop Fellay that the Society must accept all of Vatican II.

They will make the SSPX sign an even more watered down version of the April 15th docuмent. The meat and potatoes are still there, of course:V2 is acceptable in the light of Tradition.

I might add that this whole article seems to be in contradiction with the conclusory statement of the Second Vatican Council. The council was said to be binding on all subjects of the Church. Here it would seem that they are playing a half-way game of accepting some part but not others.

The concept that Vatican II can be read or interpreted "in the light of Tradition" is a false and pernicious fraud.  When the docuмents are read in an objective manner, and contrasted with Tradition, they are clearly in contempt of Tradition and orthodoxy. The fact is that to see them as somehow orthodox, one must READ INTO them, and orthodoxy which is objectively not there, and by the recorded admissions of the authors and conciliar popes, was never intended to be there.

They stand as what they are, ambiguous tomes which were meant by way of deception to overturn the Tradition, doctrine, and belief of the Church. The so called ambiguity is the very vehicle used to perpetrate this subversion.
This too was admitted to by the wicked contributers to their creation.