Card. Koch + DH, NÆ, & Jews → no SSPX regularization

[Geremia]

From the VaticanInsider:

The Vice-President of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Thierse in a vigil against neo-Nazis

But the cardinal assures Koch Vice-President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Thierse: Council will accept and dialogue with Jews
Alessandro Special
Vatican City
Reconciliation, if it occurs, is still some weeks to come, but the chancelleries of Europe are already acting to seek assurances from the Holy See about the potential consequences of returning to full communion with the Catholic Church of Lefebvrian Fraternity St. Pius X.
A particular cause for concern is the future of the Catholic dialogue with Jews, which has its roots in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, refused - as other innovations council - by traditionalist Lefebvre.
On the other hand, members of the fraternity made ​​no secret of their skepticism towards the recognition of the unique role of the Jews by the Catholic theology from the last fifty years, have repeatedly confirmed the need to try to convert even the ' older siblings' and some of their writings - most recently the 'usual' Bishop Richard Williamson - has returned once more an echo of that accusation of deicide that 'justified' for centuries Christian anti-Semitism and persecution against Jews.
Already upon the revocation of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops - fortuitously coincided with the broadcast of a Swedish documentary in which Williamson repeated his well-known theses of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic - governments of Germany, Ireland and France, among others, had expressed in varying degrees, sought assurances from the Vatican, while the Belgian Parliament had come to approve an official motion.
This time, the first to move were the Germans. Vice-President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Thierse, a Catholic and a member of the SPD Zentralkomitee der deutschen Katholiken (the Central Committee of German Catholics, which brings together the lay of the country), he spent four days in Rome to meet with various representatives of the summit of the Holy See, beginning with Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican Commission for Relations with Judaism.
It came back, he explained in a series of interviews with German media, "reassured": "In Germany - said on the radio in the archdiocese of Cologne - there are rumors that the Vatican has 'sold' against Lefebvre and Cardinal reassured me that it is not. He explained that the SSPX must accept the authority of the Magisterium and of Vatican Council II. And on two sensitive points, the relationship with the Jews and the recognition of religious freedom, there would be some hesitation or reluctance by the Vatican. "
Koch stressed that the Vatican would not fight for global human rights and religious freedom, and then "welcome into its ranks a group to which religious freedom is still the center of a dispute". "They are key issues on which the Vatican will not give up," he concluded.
Despite the reassurances, the Jewish world seems to be worried about a possible reconciliation. Last week, the Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, said that the Vatican should not conclude any agreement until the Lefebvre bishops "do not change their mind" on Nostra Aetate and relations with Jews. "It seems normal - he said - that every leader of the Catholic Church respects the decisions of the Vatican." A similar appeal had arrived some months ago by the rabbis of Europe and the U.S. Anti-Defamation League.
There is perhaps no coincidence that, while the long saga of rapprochement with the traditionalists is approaching the final stages, Pope Benedict XVI, last Thursday, he wanted to reaffirm the value of the encyclical reconciled before a group of Latin American Jews. Thanks to the Council, he said, the 'big brothers' have become "confident interlocutors and friends, even good friends, able to cope with the crisis and overcome conflicts in a positive way."

[Geremia]

Card. Koch et al. seem to think that Nostra Ætate's teachings—which, for the most part, the SSPX agrees with—are inextricably linked to Dignitatis Humanæ's heterodox doctrine on religious liberty*—a doctrine which contradicts, e.g., Bl. Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. Bp. Fellay and Bp. Williamson are certainly one regarding the errors of Dignitatis Humanæ. Card. Koch's comments are very troubling since they show the Vatican will be unwilling to give up the religious freedom doctrinal novelty. I can't imagine Bp. Fellay conceding DH just to please some Jews' conceptions of NÆ. Unless Rome concedes DH or Bp. Fellay suddenly goes heterodox on DH, there will be no SSPX regularization.

Let's remind ourselves:

Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors, e.g., CONDEMNED the following propositions regarding religious liberty and religious indifferentism as CONTRARY to the Catholic faith:

Originally Posted by Syllabus

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

Cf. these must-read encyclicals.

[Geremia]

Bp. Fellay speaks of religious liberty in a CNS interview today.

[TrueLight]

But the cardinal assures Koch Vice-President of the Bundestag Wolfgang Thierse: Council will accept and dialogue with Jews
Alessandro Special
Vatican City
Reconciliation, if it occurs, is still some weeks to come, but the chancelleries of Europe are already acting to seek assurances from the Holy See about the potential consequences of returning to full communion with the Catholic Church of Lefebvrian Fraternity St. Pius X.
A particular cause for concern is the future of the Catholic dialogue with Jews, which has its roots in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, refused - as other innovations council - by traditionalist Lefebvre.

People meddling in internal affairs.

Are the "Lefebvrians" that important that people are seeking reassurances that they adhere to a VAT II document?

[Transformer]

I doubt Bp Williamson's despicable position on the Jews will be a problem, because I frankly doubt he will end up on the correct side of the inevitable split within the SSPX.

As for attacking the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, last time I checked even noninfallible teachings, which could (in very rare instances) contain error, still command submission of intellect and will. If an individual Catholic cannot understand how a document of an Ecumenical Council is consistent with all of Tradition, he should humbly submit how own imperfect and flawed judgment to that of the thousands of faithful bishops in good standing who can understand it.

[wasserfall]

Originally Posted by Transformer

he should humbly submit how own imperfect and flawed judgment to that of the thousands of faithful bishops in good standing who can understand it.

If these faithful bishops understand how to reconcile the documents of Vatican II with preconciliar magisterial teaching, then it would be very kind of them to explain it to us.

I'm sure even the SSPX would like to hear the explanation.

[Melchior_]

Originally Posted by wasserfall

If these faithful bishops understand how to reconcile the documents of Vatican II with preconciliar magisterial teaching, then it would be very kind of them to explain it to us.

I'm sure even the SSPX would like to hear the explanation.

They are quite easy to reconcile with preconciliar magisterial teaching, though.

[YoungTradCath]

Originally Posted by Melchior_

They are quite easy to reconcile with preconciliar magisterial teaching, though.

Can you recommend a good commentary or such to shed light, just for the record?

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by Melchior_

They are quite easy to reconcile with preconciliar magisterial teaching, though.

Reconcilable? I tend to think so? But easy to do so? That's a new one to me.

Anyway, I wonder if in the future a Pope will consign Vatican 2 to the dustbin of history not because of outright heresy (which would be a problematic suggestion since it was properly promulgated as a Council) but just because it's confusing, difficult to reconcile, doesn't really help, and so on.

That's certainly not the tone today. But if the tone today can be so, so, so different from what St. Pius X or Pius XII wrote about things like the liturgy, the vernacular, modernism, and so on, perhaps it could change again in the future.

[Melchior_]

I suppose I should have clarified; from my own perspective, I find it easy to reconcile the teachings, based on my studies of mendicant traditions. Franciscans and Dominicans have long practiced what the Vatican II documents speak of when it comes to dealing with other faiths (see; the Middle East, St. Kolbe), so to me this is nothing new or exciting. Well, it's exciting in the sense that now other people can see what we've been teaching and practicing for the last 700-ish years.

Saying that Vatican II "doesn't help" ignores a few things. For one, the practical application of having the religious go back to the roots of their founders. This had to happen, and the fact that it happened automatically makes any Council this happened at a success. Also, I don't think it's coincidence that there was that document on the religious, and there then proceeds to be other documents which has the distinct appearance of having some of their practices in it.

I want to know what about today makes the "tone" so different regarding modernism. Last I heard the Church was still very vocal against it.

[YoungTradCath]

I just feel like I need no-nonsense straightforward teaching and practice from top to bottom. Or at least an image of it; image is very convincing.

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by YoungTradCath

I just feel like I need no-nonsense straightforward teaching and practice from top to bottom. Or at least an image of it; image is very convincing.

We all need this, it's human nature. Even when, in limited areas, trained theologians explore uncharted territory, we need the clear teaching always to support us.

We need this even more than during the Counter-Reformation. Rather than attacked from without by heresy, we are ourselves crumbling.

Even I, myself, who want to stay true to tradition, find that modernism has corrupted so much of what I think and what I see and what I read. I mentioned Pascendi in my reply to Melchior -- well even I am shocked. I have to do mental gymnastics to reconcile that with what the Church is emphasizing today ... but I am just a layman, I shouldn't have to do that kind of mental gymnastics.

It's sad.

[Thomas Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

If there is just one anti Semite comment, there will be bans. This is the only warning that will be given.

[Melchior_]

Originally Posted by Thomas Casey

MODERATOR WARNING

If there is just one anti Semite comment, there will be bans. This is the only warning that will be given.

Thank you for the preemptive strike, Thomas. It's sad that you have to do it though, you'd think people would know better than to be anti-Semitic

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by Melchior_

I suppose I should have clarified; from my own perspective, I find it easy to reconcile the teachings, based on my studies of mendicant traditions. Franciscans and Dominicans have long practiced what the Vatican II documents speak of when it comes to dealing with other faiths (see; the Middle East, St. Kolbe), so to me this is nothing new or exciting. Well, it's exciting in the sense that now other people can see what we've been teaching and practicing for the last 700-ish years.

Saying that Vatican II "doesn't help" ignores a few things. For one, the practical application of having the religious go back to the roots of their founders. This had to happen, and the fact that it happened automatically makes any Council this happened at a success. Also, I don't think it's coincidence that there was that document on the religious, and there then proceeds to be other documents which has the distinct appearance of having some of their practices in it.

I want to know what about today makes the "tone" so different regarding modernism. Last I heard the Church was still very vocal against it.

I see very little relationship between the older religious/mendicant traditions and the "new ecumenism." In the new ecumenism, for example, we actually remove things in the Mass that could the slightest stumbling block to other Christians. We remove the Offertory Prayers (that Luther hated), for example. Where is this is the religious traditions?

As to modernism, the Church is still against it because teachings don't change. But we see it and here it all the time. I could come up with examples, but the best example is that if you asked every Catholic to read Pascendi, or even a very distilled simplified list of the basic ideas Pascendi teaches, most Catholics would be utterly suprised/shocked/angry/horrified that they are expected to believe such mean/intolerant/horrible/superstitious/backward things.