The SSPX and the Magisterium

Rorate has an interview with Bp. Fellay.

In reading it one Q and A stuck out to me:

Brian Mershon: Some critics say that the Society’s rejection of a canonical or practical solution is a sign of obstinacy or ill will. How do you answer that? (Emphasis mine.)

Bishop Fellay: It is very simple. The Holy See has agreed that the doctrinal talks should happen, so that should answer the questions without putting the burden on me. Besides that, it is very clear that whatever practical solution that would happen without a sound doctrinal foundation would lead directly to disaster. We don’t want that. We want and need the security of a sound solution on the level of doctrine to go ahead. So to pretend there is something definitive prior to engaging in the doctrinal talks…

We have all these previous examples in front of us—the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and all of the others are totally blocked on the level of doctrine because they first accepted the practical agreement.

The question is one I have long wanted an answer to. Unfortunately I found the answer somewhat wanting.

First, that the Holy Father wants the talks doesn't really mean that the SSPX is in a good situation. To me, this more indicates that HH doesn't fully trust them, or has some reason to think that they have substantial doctrinal issues that need to be addressed. In other words, the argument base on the need for a solid doctrinal agreement is a good one coming from HH concerning someone whose orthodoxy is in question, but not coming from a Catholic.

Second, the whole second part of his answer speaking of a "sound solution on the level of doctrine" and of others' being "totally blocked because they first accepted the practical solution" smacks of an attitude foreign to the Catholic.

"Solution" to what? "Blocked" from what? Correcting the Magisterium?

It seems to be that a Catholic before the Magisterium has only one acceptable posture: acceptance of all that is definitively taught, and careful, respectful study of all that is taught non-definitively. A Catholic does not address the Magesterium as an equal, at least not on matters of doctrine.

It is something of an either-or. At the end of the day one either accepts and submits the Magisterium, insofar as every Catholic is required, or one rejects it. The fact that dogmatic or doctrinal talks are being put before a full reintegration of the SSPX with the Universal Church only indicates to me that the SSPX and the Holy See think that they have substantial doctrinal differences, which seems to imply that the SSPX is not ready to fully submit to the teaching authority of the Church.

The second part of this reply sounded to me like, "We don't like what the Church is teaching, and we aren't going to come back unless they satisfy us first."

Now admittedly theology is always subtle, we don't know exactly what is being said behind those doors, and things only get more complex when the care of souls is a primary concern (so perhaps the SSPX thinks that some things have been put forth in a confusing way that might cause scandal and thus are willing to postpone full union until these issues are settled). That the content of the talks is secret only more obscures the issue. So maybe I am totally off base, but Fellay's reply to this question did not inspire much confidence, at least not in me.