First of all, apologies to all for missing my weekly column last week. I was in the African bushveld and had no internet access — this also meant that the Doctor and I unfortunately missed the celebrations of the release of the Motu Proprio. But I’ve been enjoying catching up on the happy news now that we’ve returned, and I have several ideas relating to recent events which I may air here in the coming weeks.

I greatly appreciated the Holy Father’s remarks in the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, and I thought it was good of him to make clear that there are multiple groups of people with a love of the traditional liturgy; its proponents are not limited to schismatics and a handful of nostalgic retirees. Nonetheless, with release of the Motu Proprio, closely followed by the One Church document, it does seem that the Holy Father is making a serious and sustained effort to woo the SSPX back into a full and clear communion with Rome. I hope all of us are praying for a happy outcome to this endeavor.

The remarks of Bishop Fellay in the past few days have been encouraging in some respects. For example, he reiterated in one interview that the SSPX has long had two conditions under which they will be reconciled to Rome: first, the freeing of the Tridentine Mass, and second, the lifting of the excommunications of Archbishoop Lefebvre and the bishops he illicitly elevated. Fellay seemed to consider that the first condition may now have been adequately met, though he remains wary as we wait to see what really happens on the ground. The second condition has not been met, but the Vatican has indicated in the past that it was on the table, given a genuine willingness on the part of the SSPX to come to some agreement. It is encouraging, too, that Fellay has been so generous in his praise of the Holy Father’s courage in making this “great leap” (note that he didn’t label it a “small step” or any other diminuative term) in the right direction. His letter of July 7 indicated a willingness to engage Rome in further discussion, which is positive. In some respects, then, it would seem that the time is ripe for healing the breach.

Other signs are more worrisome. Fellay’s words of praise for Lefebvre and his “true obedience” are provocative, but not unexpected, and should probably be passed over without much comment. The following passage, however, warrants more attention:

In any event, there is in Benedict XVI the clear desire to re-affirm the continuity of Vatican II and the Mass which issued from it, with the bimillenial Tradition. This denial of a rupture caused by the last council — already shown in his address to the Curia on December 22, 2005 — shows that what is at stake in the debate between Rome and the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is essentially doctrinal. For this reason, the undeniable step forward made by the Motu Proprio in the liturgical domain must be followed — after the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication — by theological discussions.

Again, we have an indication of a willingness to talk, which is encouraging. But it seems to me that Fellay is being a bit cagey in this passage, and a lot would depend on the meaning he attaches to some key terms. What does he mean, for example, by “essentially doctrinal”? What doctrine is at stake? And what would it take for the Holy Father to admit to a “rupture” that was “caused” by the last council? I think anyone who knows anything about it will agree that there were “ruptures” within the Church in the wake of Vatican II, though the pontiff might quibble with Fellay over the question of how directly these stemmed from the council itself. But the pope has already written quite extensively about the chaos following the council. So what, exactly, is Fellay after here?

One cannot help but harbor the worry that what he really wants — what the SSPX generally wants — is an unequivocal repudiation of Vatican II. On the day the Vatican issues a document saying, “It was a mistake! So sorry,” then the SSPX will come back into the Church. But they want to return as conquerors and not as compromisers; they still crave apologies, praises and a widespread acknowedgement that they were in the right all along. I think the bottom line is this: they’re going to have to get over it. Reconciliation does not work that way. They can get some of what they want, but they must be prepared to give something back.

First and most obviously: if the SSPX is holding out for the out-and-out repudiation of the council, it will not happen. Apologies may be issued for various aspects of the implemation of the council’s provisions, and to some degree we’ve seen this already. The SSPX has already been vindicated insofar as their devotion to the Tridentine Mass has been affirmed as appropriate and pious. But Vatican II simply is not going to be erased or retracted, and I think it’s only slightly more realistic to expect an official vindication of Archbishop Lefebvre’s schismatic act. Lefebvre might be forgiven, but he isn’t going to be canonized. His admirers will have to take what they can get.

Many other points of discord can probably be nuanced, given a good faith effort from both sides. With regards to ecumenism, for example, the disagreements lie largely in phrasing and emphasis; I don’t think there’s a single black-and-white sticking point over which Fellay and Benedict would radically disagree. Discussions could indeed be fruitful. But Fellay’s suggestion that the excommunications should be lifted before beginning a dialogue with Rome is greedy and somewhat disheartening. Negotiations are about give-and-take, and at the moment, kind words for Pope Benedict notwithstanding, the SSPX seems more interested in the taking. It’s still early, and I’m hoping that the preliminary signs of a thaw will be followed by bigger gestures (from both sides, though Rome has already led the way with some handsome ones.) But I wouldn’t get too optimistic just yet. Fellay suggested in an interview that true unity comes from an agreement about the truth. Actually, I think the Catholic understanding of doctrine leaves room for disagreement about some subjects (not all, obviously) but reconciliation requires some expressions of humility from each party. Rome may be ready; I’m less confident that the SSPX is.