The SSPX to be given personal prelature?
Vatican Insider has an article too but its tone is one of growing hostility to such a deal. They are put out by Pozzo's statements on Nostra aetate principally.
Those statements are interesting though and worth looking at:

"“The Council is not a pastoral Superdogma, but rather part of the entirety of tradition and its permanent teachings.” In this respect, he explains, “while Church tradition continues to evolve, it is never in the sense of innovation, which would represent a contrast to what exists , but rather a move towards deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei ,the authentic patrimony of faith. All Church documents are to be interpreted in this manner, including those of the Council. This premise together with a commitment to the profession of faith, recognition of the Sacraments and the Papal Primacy is the basis of the doctrinal declaration which will be submitted to the Fraternity for signature. These are the prerequisites for a Catholic to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
Asked whether the Fraternity is no longer expected to acknowledge all Council declarations including the texts regarding ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, the Curia official replied, “The Fraternity commits to the defined doctrines and the Catholic truths that were confirmed by the Council documents.” As examples, he points to “the sacramental nature of the episcopacy … as well as the primacy of the Pope and the College of Bishops together with their Chairman, as was set out in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and interpreted by the Nota Explicative Praevia, requested by the highest authority.

The stumbling block however lies precisely in the documents dealing specifically with the Church’s relations with the surrounding, non-Catholic world, that have become the most important reference points for post Vatican II interfaith dialogue.

“The Fraternity finds difficulties with several aspects of Nostra Aetate, regarding interreligious dialogue, the Unitatis Redintegratio decree regarding Ecumenism, and the Dignitatis humanae Declaration on Religious Freedom, or with questions regarding the relationship of Christianity to modernity” he said.

Archbishop Pozzo explained that different documents of Vatican II bear different doctrinal weight. “However these are not doctrines regarding belief”, he specified, “nor are they definitive statements. Rather, they are suggestions, instructions, or orientational guidelines for pastoral practice. These pastoral aspects can be discussed for further clarification after the canonical recognition.” 

The interviewer asked, “Has the Vatican thus lowered its standards for the sake of reconciliation?”

“No” replied the Archbishop. “In past years we simply sorted out the essential points, separating them from those topics that could be discussed later. Previously we aimed at receiving immediate consensus on all the problematic questions, but unfortunately without success. Now we asked ourselves: what are the truly essential prerequisites for being Catholic? In consultation with the Pope, the abovementioned requirements were inserted into the Doctrinal Declaration to be submitted to the Fraternity.”

Archbishop Pozzo was then asked “How did the Vatican come to decide that different documents of the Council bear different dogmatic weight?” 

His reply: “This was not a conclusion on our part, but was already unequivocal at the time of the Council. On November 16, 1964 the Secretary General of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici declared, ‘This Holy Synod defines as binding for the Church only that which is specifically stated as such in terms of Faith and morals.’ Only texts which have been explicitly rated as binding by the Council Fathers are to be adopted as such. It is not ‘the Vatican’ that came up with this, it is stated in the Acts of Vatican II.” 

Asked how he would respond to criticism that the value and authoritativeness of such an important conciliar document as Nostra Aetate is thus denied, the Archbishop pointed out that “on November 18, 1964, the Secretary for Christian Unity had said that his Secretariat had no intention of making a dogmatic statement on non-Christian religions but rather only practical, pastoral norms.”
He then affirmed: “Nostra Aetate carries no dogmatic obligations. Therefore one cannot expect anyone to accept this Declaration as binding dogma. The Declaration is to be fully understood only in the light of tradition and the permanent teachings.” ...

Archbishop Pozzo also referred to “another unfortunately widely held view in contrast to the Catholic faith – that there is a path to salvation independent of Christ and his Church. This was recorded recently in the Declaration Dominus Iesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any interpretation of Nostra Aetate in this sense is completely unfounded and must be rejected.”


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)