John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter still insists that no reconciliation will be reached between the SSPX and the Vatican, even though there's no evidence that the SSPX will outright reject the preamble. While I admit there's certainly no evidence that Bishop Fellay or the other bishops of the SSPX (especially Bishop Williamson) will sign off on the preamble, there's no evidence that they won't.
John Allen bases his negative conjecture on the words of the SSPX district superior of Italy who was interviewed before the meeting and before we knew anything about it. Fr. Davide Pagliarani's words in that interview hardly have any relevance regarding a document the contents of which John Allen hasn't a clue. Besides, when Fr. Pagliarani states that there are errors in the Church he's hardly stating something outrageous or unbelievable... unless, of course, you write for the National Heretic Reporter, err... National Catholic Reporter. For all we know, the preamble may even state that the Church is rife with error and may call out the NCR by name as one of the primary reasons!
The point is, John Allen doesn't know what's in the preamble and he doesn't know what Bishop Fellay is thinking, thus the only basis for his negativism is his own prejudices. If the SSPX finds nothing objectionable in the preamble, then that means to a man like John Allen that the Vatican is on the side of the SSPX, and there's nothing to be feared more than that in the minds of the liberals over at NCR.
The same holds true for Jeff Mirus over at CatholicCulture.org. Again CatholicCulture has reported, without any basis in fact, that the preamble demands an acceptance of the "core teachings of Vatican II" even though the Vatican communiqué says nothing about the core teachings of Vatican II being a condition in the preamble.
Once again, Mirus and the neo-con gang over at CatholicCulture.org have no idea what is in the preamble, thus their insistence that an "acceptance of Vatican II" must be in the preamble comes from their own prejudices. If the documents of Vatican II are not essential and necessary elements of the faith (de fide), if the preamble does not contain any mention of having to accept any Vatican II teaching as de fide (unless of course it simply repeats an already defined dogma), then Mirus has to admit he has been wrong, and Vatican II is not the litmus test of true Catholicism and obedience.
Traditionalists already feel vindicated by just the contents of the communiqué, and this whether or not the SSPX bishops sign off on the preamble. A victory has already been won for the Church in the fight against Modernism. Thus, it's no wonder that the Modernists are digging in their heels. They aren't going to give up. However, it is obvious that the thick skulls at the liberal National Catholic Reporter and the neo-cons over at CatholicCulture.org are having to either jump to conclusions or twist the facts in order to cover up their hand ringing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bullseye. Though I don't identify myself as a traditionalist Catholic, I thought the catholicculture.org write-up had some troubling "spin", and I knew what Allen was going to write before I even read the piece. Let's hope they are both vexed at the outcome--I'm optimistic!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your good observations. I love your blog and follow it daily. I see you don't get many comments. Please don't think by that that your daily postings of the liturgical texts and other topics are not appreciated!
ReplyDeleteExcellent post, spot-on! The fact that Bishop Fellay has called senior members of the SSPX to Italy in just a couple of weeks to discuss the document and, presumably, render a decision on whether or not to sign it, must mean that neither he nor anyone else who has read the document has seen anything that would cause him to dismiss it outright. I trust that Bishop Williamson would not stand by quietly if he believed there were anything in the document that betrays the mission and core beliefs of the SSPX.
ReplyDelete