Bet on Doctrinal Discussion

[maldon]

I don't have an ounce of the gambling man in me, and I don't know how long the "doctrinal discussions" on the Second Vatican Council will take before the status of the SSPX is regularised, but I would wager the "discussions" will be much shorter than we might imagine.

I would LOVE to be Bishop Fellay right now. Imagine the scene: a group of SSPX hierarchy and Roman authorities get together, and all Bishop Fellay has to say to end the discussion is one thing: "Tell me, Holy Father, what Vatican II means, article by article, and I will assent to all of it."

The good bishop could say this with the certainty that he will never have to assent to anything, because no one can say what VII really means. The whole issue around dissident theologians, dissident bishops, and heretical wild card priests and laity rests on the fact that VII can be interpreted to mean anything you want, and that the only way the pope is ever going to end the chaos of today is either by interpreting the thing line by line in accordance with Tradition, a task that could take 20 years to do, or he can use VII's weakness against it: there is no definitive interpretation of it, so we cannot impose one on the SSPX. Which Roman authority could conceivably be willing to offer a complete, definitive interpretation of VII? Pope John Paul II tried his very best in all his writings, and only made the murky waters murkier.

Therefore, I wager the arguments will be reduced to the negative, that is, the SSPX will be asked to interpret the non-dogmatic, non-binding council in accordance with Tradition. But they already do! Thus, only a liberal interpretation of VII can conceivably be wrong. A traditionalist interpretation of it cannot be wrong, by definition. This is a bizarre situation, and I think it will depend more on personalities and egos (of all involved) than on anything doctrinal.

And the Romans are wizards at this. Notice the wording of the lifting of the excommunications: no one lost face.

Anyway, that's my wager. 

[winoblue1]

Very interesting suggestion...

I think you are right about the fact that if the Vatican does interpret the documents of V2 they have to come down on the side of tradition, because anything less is not a continuous development, so much for the hermeneutic of continuity.

So they may perhaps, as you mentioned, just put on a show and by this try and get the SSPX to agree to a personal prelature.

However, one issue I have is that Pope Benedict is not stupid and he knows the SSPX are not stupid either. So my gut feeling (perhaps it is wishful thinking) is that perhaps our Holy Father is finally ready to settle the problem definitively once and for all, and by giving swift concessions to the SSPX, this means he is going to decide in their favor.

Why else would he bother with lifting the excommunications, if only to have discussions breakdown and the SSPX go their own way again?

He is too smart to just herd the theologians together into the ring and let them fight it out. He must already know how the council should be interpreted.

Also, he is getting old and even if the world reacts to him with anger and vileness, he knows he has to make an account to Our Lord very soon and the world's wrath can't compete with that.

[Gerard]

What's needed more than anything to restore the Church is for the Holy Father to CONDEMN specific false interpretations of the documents of Vatican II.  The policies advocated by Vatican II have to be either sunsetted or the policies have to have condemnations of false implementations.

This is the thing that our Holy Father and JPII were more loathe to do than anything I believe in the name of "collegiality." (cough!...Gallicanism..cough!)   But, the errors must not be allowed to live within the Church. 

[CatholicThurifer]

I agree the pope (this one or another) should condemn the various heresies that have arisen as a result of Vatican II.

And if all you say is that Vatican II can and should only be interpreted in the traditional manner, then you have to somehow define what exactly is Catholic Tradition.

[maldon]

Certainly it is the task of the pope to condemn false interpretations of conciliar documents.

However, we are talking about a very special conciliar document: one that condemned nothing and affirmed nothing dogmatic. Thus, one that basically said nothing of any essential importance, nothing binding, etc. In a sense, it is almost like a person was supposed to write a catechism but instead gave a sermon. The task of digging out the actual "affirmations (non-binding!) would take too long and would  serve no purpose.

Worse still, the number of possible false interpretations of this document is limitless. Do we really think that the pope or Bishop Fellay want to spend their time on such a task before reconciliation? I don't think so.

What is possible I suppose would be for the Holy Father to ask Bishop Fellay for a list of VII questionable affirmations and for Bishop Fellay's interpretation of them in the light of Tradition. Again, this is an easy task.

I also agree with the writer above who suggested that Pope Benedict would not have gone this far had he not intended to see it through to the end. He now has a project that must be accomplished in his lifetime or risk not being accomplished at all.

[Credo]

I doubt any negoiations will be done quickly.

Which one of the following ideas will Rome give up first:

- Religious Liberty,
- False Ecumanism,
- Collegiality?

[winoblue1]

I think that perhaps the issue of the identity of the church might be one of the first and easiest topics to deal with because the Pope has already basically said that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, so a further clarification wouldn't be a big issue.

The other is religious liberty, partly because this is the one 'teaching' of V2 that has the most holes in it and there exists wide criticism of this 'teaching' of V2. I once was told by a FSSP seminarian that the FSSP thinks this is the first teaching of V2 to crumble under the weight of tradition because it is so full of holes.

Collegiality might be the hardest nut to crack because it is about the giving up of power by the liberal bishops and they won't give it to this easily. Perhaps this one needs to be addressed first for the successful completion of the other issues already mentioned.

Ecumenism is also easy to deal with, because it doesn't take any work, once the Pope reaffirms that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, which he has already done, the problem of ecumenism can be solved by simply not doing anything. No one will imagine that the Church will stop cooperating with other religions to achieve political or social goals, but the sharing of sacraments and churches etc, that can be solved by simply not doing it.

[maldon]

They don't have to give up any of them. All they have to do is judge which, if any, of the SSPX ideas are against the faith and/or tradition of the Catholic Church.

Maybe it boils down to a question of who judges whom. If it is the Church judging the SSPX, the matter can be solved quickly and easily. If, however, the SSPX places itself as judge of the Church, it can take long, or forever, because no individual group can order the Church to define anything.

[winoblue1]

It's not about who judges what, it's about getting to the root of the present crisis in the Church.

The SSPX simply is the mouth piece for the teachings of the Popes prior to V2. They are simply repeating what they have written and said.

[SaintSebastian]

If I'm not mistaken, the SSPX do not have a problem with how the doctrine on the college of bishops is explained in Lumen Gentium (especially when taking into account the preliminary note attached to it), but rather in its excerise. The fact is, papal (and episcopal) authority has been exercised to different degrees at different times and for different reasons. I don't think the existence of a disagreement over how the Pope should use his authority will be a point that should prohibit that unity in faith and government.

I think ecumenism is generally the same. If both sides can agree the ultimate intention is for all Baptized persons to partake of Catholic unity, I think there can exist legitimate differences as to the approach taken to bring this about. The official texts on the subject even say individual conversions and ecumenism are complementary and that we all have the duty and right to encourage others to embrace the truth.

It is my understanding that interreligious dialogue is generally considered under the umbrella of ecumenism by SSPX authorities, even though it technically is not. But again, I think the same disagreement can exist as to the effectiveness of certain means, without there being a breach of unity in faith and government.

The real sticker seems to me to be religious liberty. I think both sides not only disagree as to the meaning of DH but also as to the meaning of past magisterial pronouncements.

As an aside, aren't the SSPX claiming the freedom to worship and act according to their consciences, seeking to have bishops come to a mutual decision with the Roman Pointiff in their common solicitude for the good of the whole Church, and seeking to heal divisions--all in the hope of renewing the Church to better fulfill her Divine mission in light of the particular problems of the modern world?