SSPX Sine Qua Non Conditions: Ecumenism unveiled or just another faulty argument?

On one web forum the following argument was put forth as a reason for not attending the Masses offered by the SSPX.

The SSPX is officially willing to make a canonical agreement without a doctrinal resolution, so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith. However, the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same as part of the agreement. This position contains an implicit but necessary admission that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds; this position reduces the Faith to opinions; this position is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism/religious liberty. The SSPX leaders and the priests who consent to this position, either explicitly or by their silence, are hence co-operating in objective grave sin, at least on the level of principle. 

The reference in the quotation is to the sine qua non conditions set by the SSPX for the consideration of a canonical regularization.

What follows is brief analysis of the author's argument and an exposition of its flawed assumption

... And don't forget this error in principle:
The SSPX is officially willing to make a canonical agreement without a doctrinal resolution,
In the present climate it is probably advisable to be clear on what had been determined as the principles used in guiding the actions of the SSPX in the discussions with Rome as well as the context in which
it was set aside.


Fr. Pfluger:
But then the conference hall in Hattersheim (Germany) got more and more excited as Fr. Pfluger unexpectedly started to unveil the events of the past years up until now. And he also announced that these events prompted Bishop Fellay toplace aside the principle that guided negotiations with Rome.


The Pope’s desire of a solution


“No practical solution without doctrinal agreement” – such was the principle upon which the Society had started the talks with the Holy See. But the negotiations of the past years have revealed that the different positions regarding central questions of doctrine cannot be bridged.


Recent weeks have revealed that the Pope is so much interested in a canonical solution for the Society that he is ready to seal a deal, even if the Society does not recognize the disputed texts of Vatican II and the New Mass. Would the Society, however, refuse an agreement even under these circumstances, then new excommunications are a
possible outcome.


The freedom to continue working in freedom


Under these circumstances the Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, does not consider it possible to reject the Pope’s proposal. It would be tantamount to a lapse into Sedevacantism if one would still isolate oneself from the Pope’s wish, if this wish does not entail acknowledging false doctrine. It also is a matter of prudence/wisdom not to cut all connections with Rome. One should keep at least one door open, even if at this moment there seems to be no proximity in doctrinal matters.


It is, of course, a pre-condition that an agreement will cover the assurance that the Society will be able to disagree from Rome’s positions in disputed matters and that it will have the freedom to continue her work in her entire apostolate. Part of an autonomous status would also be the right to criticize the Council and Modernism.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-important-fr-pfluger-speaks.html
So, in the mind of the author, we have a principle established by a General Chapter of the SSPX is of higher authority than the will of the Vicar of Christ (Pope Benedict XVI).  This hearkens back to the principles laid out in the Summa concerning obedience due to one's superior (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm).



Point 2: so long as Rome gives the SSPX the right to teach the Faith and condemn the errors of Vatican II against the same Faith.
This is an incorrect estimation of what is deemed to be a request/command that fulfills the requirements of the principle of obedience.  There are three sine quo non conditions and therefore must be treated as a whole.



1. “The freedom to preserve, transmit and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and of the unchangeable truth of divine Tradition;  the freedom to prohibit, correct and reprove, even publicly, those who foment the errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their
consequences;
2. The freedom to use the 1962 liturgy exclusively. To preserve the sacramental practice that we presently have (including: Holy Orders, Confirmation, Matrimony);
3. A guarantee of at least one bishop.”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1726/sspx_dialogue_continues_patience_serenity_perseverance_and_trust_are_needed.aspx#.UfZ9i215F1w
For additional insight:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10/from-dici-sspx-rome-present-day.html
Under these conditions, the SSPX is willing to consider whether or not to accept a canonical regularization.  It is important to note that the details of the regularization would also be weighed in the decision.

I believe that these conditions may be held to represent what the SSPX considers to qualify as a command that appears to meet the requiements for obedience as described above.



Point 3: However, the SSPX does not demand from Rome the same as part of the agreement.
Given that the 'sine qua non' conditions establish the conditions under which the SSPX would accept a proposed regularization from the Pope, it is inconsistent to require a subjective and vague condition such as the 'conversion of Rome etc'.  The subjective state of Rome et al is a separate question from the liceity of the command.

The real question should be what kind of Pope would accede to the three sine qua non conditions?

If a Pope were to grant them he would be stating that:


A. The theological positions of the SSPX regarding the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo are not impediments to canonical regularity (approval by the Church etc).  Id Est: The authority of the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo are of such a level that allows theological disagreement without preventing one from being censured.
B. The SSPX is protected from liturgical tinkering.
C. That the SSPX has sufficient stature that it requires at least one Bishop directly in charge of the congregation providing a degree of independence from the Diocesan Hierarchy.


Point 4:This position contains an implicit but necessary admission that Rome has the right to teach those errors it currently holds
This is non sequitur (does not follow).

The mere fact that the SSPX would be granted the

... freedom to prohibit, correct and reprove, even publicly, those who foment the errors or innovations of modernism, liberalism, the Second Vatican Council and their consequences ...
implies no admission of a freedom to teach errors on the part of any one.

If the Pope were to grant such a condition, it would actually imply that the SSPX is correct in its assessment of the documents vis-a-vis the pre- counciliar Magisterium and that they (SSPX) were able to correct those who hold the errors.

Under the only conceivable way in which a Pope who accede to such a condition (being substantially in agreement with the theological stance of the SSPX), such an authorization to make a correction implies the opposite of what the author has applied.

Error would be called out as such with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.

So this is the fulcrum upon which the argument rests.  Being faulty, the remaining assertions are therefore false.

There is another issue with the assertion is that it bases an objective conclusion upon an implicit condition.


Points 5 to 10 that rest upon point #4:
5. this position reduces the Faith to opinions
6. this position is a non-Catholic variant of ecumenism/religious liberty.
7. The SSPX leaders and the priests who consent to this position,
8. either explicitly or by their silence,
9. are hence co-operating in objective grave sin,
10. at least on the level of principle.
As noted the remaining points, resting upon the faulty assertion of point 4 are false.

In performing the post mortem on the argument, it is intriguing that point 5 extends to a theological disagreement about documents in V2 etc to that the level of an explicit disagreement on De Fide teachings.

From this the author reaches out for the conclusion that this results in the consent of 'objective grave sin'.

All based upon an implicit interpretation that is unsubstantiated except in the mind of the author.

The mind of the author is very elastic in one direction.