Does anyone have a link to this official announcement?
As for the establishment of a Theological Committee specialized in the study of Vatican II, I wonder "what's there to study?" ALL of the documents from VCII are posted on the Vatican web site. We can be certain, from all that we have read over the years, that the FSSPX has thoroughly read and critiqued these documents. What possible 'new' insights can a specialized committee learn from re-reading them again?
ces discussions prouvent que le Vatican considère avec beaucoup de sérieux les critiques doctrinales de la FSSPX contre le Concile
And there is the proof that they have read, studied and critiqued these documents over the decades and are now expecting the Vatican to positively comment on the FSSPX doctrinal critiques.
Nothing the FSSPX says, does or wishes, will overturn Vatican Council II. The Novus Ordo is here to stay.
“The Novus Ordo is here to stay.”
And they also said the traditional Latin Mass had been abrogated and forbidden.
Summorum Pontificum refuted that.
The Novus Ordo, as it is known today, is not long for this world. The next revision of the Novus Ordo, due in 2009, will change it very much from its current form. Subsequent revisions will continue to reform the reform until the “Novus Ordo” will look nothing like it does today, but an awful lot like the traditional Latin Mass with just enough vernacular to fulfill the actual written intent of the documents of VII.
I agree with you about the N.O. being here to stay, but most likely, in the liturgical area, in a refomred and improved fashion (we all have our own ideas of improvements, of course).
What they are getting at here is the doctrinal discussions concerning the other issues from the Council that the FSSPX has had problems with: off the top of my head, I recall ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty, not to mention some phrasings in Gaudium et Spes. What is encouraging here is that Bishop Fellay is putting together a commission to study the Council, sure, but also it is a convenient mechanism to begin a dialog with Rome over how to understand the Council in the light of Tradition. Transcedning the differences, one would hope, ultimately.
I am reminded again of the late great Frederick Wilhelmsen, a loyal Churchman but also one who wrote for “The Angelus” from time to time, and when asked why he did it, he would say: “Everyone else ecumenizes to the left, I am ecumenizing to the right.”
There are a lot of issues at play here, so I expect there will be plenty of suspicion and concern from al sides, but let’s see what happens.
This is an odd combination of statements. The "Novus Ordo" has very little to do with Vatican II. The "Mass of Vatican II" was the 1962 Missal.
That battle has already been resolved in favor of a more generous availability of the forma extraordinaria.
What will hopefully come out of these discussions is a clarification of how some of the documents of Vatican II are properly interpreted in the context of previous councils and Holy Tradition. There is at least some ambiguity which arose from the Council.
I don't know where you've been, but apparently quite a lot. About 99% of what I see written or spoken about Vatican II is false and contradicted if you read the actual documents. Apparently, Vatican II became completely irrelevant almost as soon as it ended. Almost nothing it actually said survived the end of the decade. I'm not claiming I know what to make of that, but I can't agree that Vatican II is something that is well known by virtuallu anyone.
What’s with “FSSPX”? For years, I’ve always seen exclusively SSPX. Given that FSSP is a non-schismatic, wholly authorized, truly Catholic group of Latin-Mass-devoted priests, which seems bound to explode in popularity given Benedict’s MP, it seems suspicious that maybe SSPX is purposely trying to sow confusion be adopting the name making its name more similart to FSSP. Are they trying to make people think, “No, wait, I think FSSPX is the legitimate one!”
It reminds me of jokingly trying to confuse people by refering to the computer company “Hewlett Packard Bell Labs” (back in the day of Hewlett Packard, Packard Bell and Bell Labs).