All the pope's men: Vatican's side of the table in the SSPX discussions

Our friends at Rorate Coeli have published some names that are being floated in the Roman rumor mill as participants, on the Vatican side of the table, in the upcoming discussions with the SSPX.

Here is my take on the three names that surfaced there.

Fr. Charles Morerod, O.P.

He wrote a book entitled Ecumenism and Philosophy, which discusses the philosophical (and perhaps, philological) roots of the divisions in Christianity. (I’ve never read the book.) He has given a number of talks on ecumenism, and has written a number of essays on the topic. His presence demonstrates the ecumenism piece of the discussions. Morerod will present a sober and orthodox approach to ecumenism, as is demonstrated by these words:

The Eucharist, the source and sign of unity par excellence, is also a sign of division. This paradox is found in all the key points of the faith. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini noted, on 25 January 1963, that "we come to realize that a strange phenomenon exists. What should lay the foundations of union — thought, doctrine, our common faith — instead of being a subject of union is an impediment, an obstacle to unity. Faith divides us".

First of all, it is Christ himself who divides people even in families, Christ, the maximum principle of unity! And how many people, even in the realm of the profane, are divided in the name of love? The most unitive things are also the most divisive, even if the dynamism that impels them toward union may come first. Today the Eucharist is first and foremost the ultimate instrument and sign of Christian unity, the action of grace for unity that is already real.

From Reflections on Ecclesia de Eucharistia

Fr. Morerod will present an approach to ecumenism that is line with traditional Catholic doctrine, but this may not jive with SSPX hardliners (or even moderates), who will insist on nothing short of abandoning the entire post-VCII venture. It will be interesting to see how the SSPX handles Fr. Morerod's Thomistic ecumenism.

Fr. Karl Becker, S.J.

Fr. Becker is a right of center theologian thoroughly entrenched in the Ratzinger school of the “hermeneutic of continuity”. He had done extensive work on the “subsistet in” controversy of the VCII document “Lumen Gentium”. He wrote:

The phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) for ever in the Catholic Church.

From An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective

Like Pope Benedict XVI he insists on an interpretation of the VCII documents in line with traditional Catholic doctrine, but could find himself at loggerheads with the SSPX, not so much over the nature of the council documents, but in regards to their value to the Church. He will insist, like the pope, that the documents are critically important and will brook no “poison cake” positions.

Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz (Opus Dei)

One need go no further than the words “Opus Dei” to see a possible stumbling block in these talks. The unflinching, and as many have criticized, the blind, obedience of Opus Dei to the Roman Pontiff is legendary. This is the pope’s man, and his involvement is obviously to be sure the interests of the papacy will be served by these discussions. Mgr. Fernando Ocáriz is the vicar-general of Opus Dei, the number two guy. The SSPX need tread lightly on this ground if these talks are to be successful.

Ocáriz is more than just a well pressed cassock, however. He was a main contributor to the 2000 document Dominus Iesus, and is an erudite theologian in his own right. Of particular note to the purposes of these discussions, however, is the fact that Ocáriz also published an article in the L'Osservatore Romano concerning the nature of the Church and subsistet in (The Church of Christ, the Catholic Church and churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, Italian edition). Published within a few days of Becker’s treatment in the English edition, his conclusion was consistent with Becker’s, indicating that they were both writing under the direction of the Holy Father.

The presence of both Becker and Ocáriz demonstrates that these discussions will focus in large part on the nature and interpretation of the VCII documents. As stated already, there will be considerable agreement between the two parties on the nature of the documents and their interpretation. This could bear much fruit for the Church if the contents and conclusions of the discussions are made public. However, there may be considerable disagreement over the value of the documents.



The Vatican side of the table will be peopled, not so much with enthusiastic supporters of the SSPX, but men firm in belief that the VCII documents need to be read in accordance with Tradition, and an orthodox and sober approach to ecumenism. What’s more, the Vatican side of the table demonstrates the utterly doctrinal nature of these discussions. So far, no expert in liturgical theology was announced, and the absence of that says more than anything else.