We thought you might want to read the full text of this perceptive analysis of current developments in the blog Messa in Latino. Of course, the story of the oppositon of the three FSSPX bishops to reconciliation between the FSSPX and Rome has since been eclipsed by the emergence of the far more significant opposition of Benedict’s own bishops – both in and outside of Rome. We hope to bring you further information on this too.
(In his introduction, the author refers to the coup de theatre of the last few days with the publication of the letters between Msgr. Fellay and the other three bishops of the FSSPX. He thinks that all concerned knew that there was a good chance that these letters would be published, and he is very happy that this has happened, because it clearly shows the very real split in the Society that he has spoken about in the past. He then offers his analysis of the situation.)
The situation was already quite clear before the exchange of those letters: The Fraternity of St. Pius X finds itself in the apparently enviable position of being confronted with a Pope that, in essence, supports it entirely. ‘We will not discuss whether first the Mass of the ages will have to be set free and the excommunications revoked’ said Msgr. Fellay. This has happened. ‘No canonical accord without first deep discussions as equals’. And there have followed theological discussions at the highest levels during two years (and not thirty years as predicted, with wishful thinking, by Msgr. Tissier de Mallerais.) ‘There is a need for a structure that guarantees the freedom of action of the Fraternity’ and, even if this point is still to be made clear, Fellay himself understands that on the part of Rome this has never constituted a problem.
This attitude of Benedict XVI has taken away from the Fraternity every alibi. But if the Pope has conceded everything, why is there so much agony in the body of the Fraternity itself? Why on earth does the very same Msgr. Fellay himself write –but this was already clear to any attentive observer—that he would have preferred to remain indefinitely in the status quo, in which the Fraternity pays lip service respect to the power of the Pope, but in fact acts as a small autocephalous church? Not certainly (or at least not only) to be able to be at the helm of an entity that, in fact superiorem non recognoscet. But above all because Msgr. Fellay knows very well that the moment of truth will be also a moment of trauma and internal fighting. This is what he, most understandably, would like to avoid at all costs.
Induratum est cor of a significant part of the representatives of the Fraternity, as happens inevitably in all dissident groups. It is a sickness that is called sectarianism. Jokingly, I said that for a long time that certain elements in the Fraternity would reject with horror a doctrinal preamble that contained even only the words “Credo in unum Deum”, for the sole reason that it comes from Rome.
The scolding letter written by the bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and Galarreta serves only to confirm this impression. Read it attentively: you do not find in the letter criticisms (which in this case would have been constructive, or at least worthy of attention) of the specific passages of the Preamble, or of the proposed canonical solution, or something similar. No, sir: the argument put forth is dogmatic and without a direct appeal: the Pope is a “subjectivist”, that is, he does not believe in the objective reality of the truth of faith; as such he is able to welcome into the pantheon of Conciliar Catholicism all the sensibilities and opinions, even if contradictory, since each is ‘true” only relatively within its own ambience.
Now, to affirm these things about the Pope, about this Pope, who has made the battle against religious relativism (the consequence of subjectivism) the basis of the plan of his pontificate right from the homily of his inauguration Mass, is not even a caricature (which presumes always a partial basis in truth): it is a turning upside down of the facts and of good sense.
As Msgr. Fellay well responds to this point to his brother bishops, the Church is horribly disfigured, but, on the other hand, one cannot wait in an ivory tower in the hope that she will recover. It is necessary to participate in the battle to heal her ills; and also when her ills have passed, other new ones will arise. The life, not only of the individual Christian, but of the whole mystical Body is permanently militia—a fighting action against the Hydra always rising from evil and heresy.
One should not fail to notice, in general, the dignified and analytical tone of the letter of response of Msgr. Fellay and his assistants, which contrasts with the sloganeering of his opponents. The letter from the FSSPX headquarters seems written not only to quiet internal dissension by the force of reason, but also to furnish, thanks to its style that is studiously measured and reflective and insistently referring to the sensus ecclesiae, a preventative weapon for the Vatican when it will have to find how to make the reconciliation with the episcopate palatable. The apparent silence on this question can be the result of a hopeful skepticism about the outcome of the talks, but it can also be the prelude to a tempestuous rebellion at a critical moment.
What will happen now? In these final days, the Lefebvrian barometer is registering a turn towards fair weather. In the months immediately following the delivery of the doctrinal Preamble, those against the accord prevailed, and Msgr Fellay himself could do no better than to delay as long as possible a response. This caused in the “Romans” a certain feeling of impatience, and also some hardness of position that certainly did not help him in his difficult position of the intermediary. But if the antipapal resistance in the Fraternity organized itself, cementing the positions of the three bishops with those of the Superior of the powerful French district, Cacquerary (who still in the editorial of the last issue of Fideliter describes Benedict XVI as a prisoner of “profound and grave illusions” about the conciliar “new religion”), there have arisen positions of several Superiors of districts in favor of a reconciliation. First among these is the German Schmidberger, who was also the first successor of Msgr. Lefebvre at the head of the Fraternity. Together with him stand the Superiors of the United States, Holland-Belgium and Asia. Above all there is the important support of Abbé Simoulin, who in full knowledge of the case—at that time he was the rector of the seminary in Écone—has overturned the reason for which it was necessary for Msgr. Lefebvre to refuse the Roman offer (of reconciliation), revealing that that refusal in 1988 did not depend at all on doctrinal disagreements, but only on the practical questions about the naming of his successor.
Fellay himself must have shrewdly figured out two things. The first: that Rome would not allow him to wriggle out of the problem any longer (as he would have preferred) and that he would have to decide on the basis of yes or no. The second: that in the case of a negative response to the accord, he, solely from the fact of having conducted the negotiations in a “moderate” way, would end up quite rapidly dismissed and, probably, even purged from a Fraternity setting out on the road of extremism and self-ghettoization. This is a real risk, as Msgr. Fellay writes: ‘This incapacity to distinguish leads one or the other of you towards an absolute hardening. This is serious because this caricature is outside of reality and will lead logically in the future to a real schism. And perhaps that fact is one of the reasons that is pushing me to not delay any longer to respond to the Roman requests.’
The exchange of letters that ended up on the Internet in effect expresses two things. On one side, the very strong fear of the three recalcitrant bishops that the accord will indeed be reached. On the other side, the sense of surety that Msgr. Fellay has acquired by this time. Up till now he seemed instead more similar to “King Tentenna” (ed. note: a king who could not make up his mind) that to Clausewitz. Thisnew sense of security is seen clearly from how he does not worry about addressing his confreres with strong accusations (of sedevacantism, lack of faith in the supernatural, insubordination for direct opposition to his leadership).
The problems tied to the doctrinal preamble seem, in effect, resolved. So affirms Msgr. Arrieta, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for the interpretation of legislative documents (the dicastery that you can be sure is preoccupied with the next problem: the definition of a canonical structure) An indiscretion that was revealed to us (take it as such, but I assure you that it is reliable) that the last response of Msgr. Fellay, in which he accepts the famous Preamble but with some significant modifications, before being sent officially to Ecclesia Dei and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent directly, via Msgr. Georg, to the Pope, who did not raise any objections. This was one way to be sure that some zealous Roman functionary, perhaps because of an excessive affection to the text of the Preamble originally prepared by his dicastery, would not raise problems. So we are able to wait for Wednesday with confidence, when the CDF is scheduled to tell what their response is to the FSSPX.
With the subject of the doctrinal preambles out of the way, we will pass on to truly serious matters, which are, naturally, the juridical questions. On one side: what will be the destiny of the Fraternity in case of an internal split: whether in terms of numbers, or in terms of the ownership of the structures and the centers of the apostolate (on this point, however, I hazard a guess that the internal schism—which may happen—will be substantially circumscribed and probably will not involve all the three bishops: there does not seem to me to be a great desire to create a sort of a “Lefebvrist refoundation”.)
On the other hand, the question of the canonical structure arises. Personally I am convinced that this may be the only point on which the FSSPX would have every reason to refuse the accord, if they were not to obtain a canonical exemption from the diocesan bishops. But on this point, and on the solutions that are impending, I am postponing to a later post, because I realize that I have already bored you enough for today.
Enrico
Translated by Fr. Richard Cipolla
Original: http://blog.messainlatino.it/2012/05/la-tormentata-storia-delle-relazioni.html
Related Articles
No user responded in this post