SSPX v. the "mainstream" Church: a theologian's questions

The Society of Saint Pius X, established by the late Abp. Lefebvre+, is expected to respond soon to what the noted Vatican analyst Sandro Magister calls "the last call from Rome to [return to] the sheepfold".

Seven months ago, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- the body we used to call "the Holy Office" -- delivered to the SSPX a "doctrinal preamble" as the "fundamental basis for the attainment of full reconciliation". The SSPX found that in good conscience and faith, it could accept only part of this preamble. The CDF said that was "not sufficient" to heal the "fracture". The Vatican's way or the highway to schism!

However, Rome didn't close the door tightly. On March 16th, the CDF offered the SSPX the possibility of another response, which is the one that is expected any day now.

But what exactly is the doctrinal cause of the division between the traditionalists -- the SSPX -- and the so-called "mainstream Church"? And why is there a fracture between Rome and the Lefebvrists over their rejection of some of the teachings of Vatican Council II, while at the same time other Catholic currents of the opposite nature continue to inhabit the Church undisturbed, in spite of the fact that they too reject essential teachings of the same Council?

These are the two questions at the heart of an analysis written expressly for Sandro Magister's website, Chiesa, by John R. T. Lamont.

Dr. Lamont received a degree in philosophy from Oxford and in theology in Ottawa with the great Dominican theologian Jean-Marie Tillard. He now lives in Australia and teaches at the Catholic Institute and at the University of Notre Dame, with the canonical mandate of the Archdiocese of Sydney for the teaching of theology.

His article looks at the controversy from a new point of view -- not unsympathetic to the Society, but on the contrary, too understanding of its arguments. Here are some excerpts.

He refers first to a list, written by the SSPX's Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize. of the elements of Vatican II that the Society finds unacceptable.

"On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

"These four points are as follows.

"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

Fr. Gleize participated in the doctrinal discussions between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities.... We may reasonably take his statement as a description of the doctrinal points upon which the [Society] will not compromise, and that are taken by the Holy See to inevitably give rise to a rift.

The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the SSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

The first question that the communiqué of the Holy See raises for a theologian is thus: why does the rejection by the FSSPX of a small part of the teachings of Vatican II give rise to a rift between that Society and the Holy See, while the rejection of more numerous and important teachings of Vatican II by other groups in the Church leave these groups in good standing and possessed of full canonical status? Rejection of the authority of Vatican II by the FSSPX cannot be the answer to this question; the FSSPX in fact shows more respect for the authority of Vatican II than most of the religious orders in the Church.

If the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX does not arise from rejection of the authority of the Second Vatican Council by the Society, it could be the case that the rift arises from the doctrinal position of the FSSPX in itself.... This side of the FSSPX's [argument] consists in positions on the doctrines that Catholics should believe, positions that do not in themselves make claims about the content or authority of Vatican II.

The FSSPX ... does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

This raises the second question concerning the position of the Holy See on the FSSPX that suggests itself to a theologian: how can there be any objection to the FSSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection.

Dr. Lamont gives examples from the texts of Vatican II to support his argument. And he asks three more very good questions. And he gives three very good answers, the last of which is an excellent point on which to close.

The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the FSSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.

Click here to read Dr. Lamont's article in its entirety on Chiesa. Italian, French and Spanish versions of the article are also available. If you can't find the links, e-mail me and I'll give you the link you're looking for.