アヴェ・マリア！
愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、
先日、ブログ「バチカン・インフォメーション・サービス」による英語訳のバチカンの聖ピオ十世会に関する公式発表をご紹介しましたが、日本語訳を作って下さった方がおりますので、感謝してご紹介します。なお、この日本語訳は、原文のフランス語及びイタリア語に忠実であるように訳されております。英語訳は、ブログ Rorate Caeli に掲示されているもの、或いは、DICI に掲載されているものの方が忠実です。
聖ピオ十世会に関する公式発表
2011年9月14日、水曜日
2011年9月14日、教理聖省の本部に於いて、当聖省長官であり『エクレジア・デイ』教皇庁立委員会の委員長でもあるウィリアム・レヴァダ枢機卿（William Levada）と、当聖省で事務長を務めるイエズス会のルイス・ラダリア（Luis Ladaria）大司教、そして当教皇庁立委員会の秘書グィド・ポッゾ（Guido Pozzo）司教らは、聖ピオ十世会総長のベルナール・フェレー司教並びに、総長補佐のニクラウス・フルーガー（Niklaus Pfluger）神父と、アラン・マルク・ネリ（Alain-Marc Nely）神父と面会した。
聖ピオ十世会総長から教皇聖下ベネディクト十六世宛てに為された2008年12月15日の訴えの続きとして、教皇様は、ルフェーブル大司教が聖別した四名の司教に対する破門宣告を撤回し、また同時に、教義上の困難と問題を乗り越え、現存する折損を癒す目的で、当司祭会との教義上の話し合いの開始を決定した。
教皇様の意志に従い、聖ピオ十世会及び教理聖省から選ばれた顧問たちで構成された共同の研究委員会が設立され、それは2009年10月から2011年4月の間に、ローマで八回に亘って面会した。これらの話し合いの目標は、論争のある諸点についての主要な教義上の問題を特定しかつ深く検討する事であり、双方の教義的見解とその動機を明らかにするという目的を果たした。
第二バチカン公会議を聖伝との断絶とする『断絶の解釈』（2005年12月22日、ローマ教皇庁へのベネディクト十六世の訓話で言及された解釈）と対立するものとして、カトリック信仰の完全性を守る事に対して聖ピオ十世会が提示した懸念と要求を考慮し、教理聖省は、使徒座との完全な和解に至る為の根本的基礎として、教義に関する前置き文書の承認であるとし、この文章は2011年9月14日に会合の間に手渡された。この前置き文書は、公教会の教導権に忠実であること、また『sentire cum Ecclesia＜公教会と共に考える＞』ことを保証するのに不可欠な、カトリック教義を解釈する教義的な原理や基準を述べている。同時に当文書は、第二バチカン公会議の諸公文書とそれ以降の教導権に含まれる個別の表現や言い回しに関する検討及び神学的解釈について、正当な討論の可能性を残している。
さらに同会合に於いては、聖ピオ十世会の教会法的な解決策を模索した幾つかの要素からなる提案が為されたが、もしかしたら期待された和解が続くかもしれない。
以下は、「レヴァダ枢機卿との面会」後のフェレー司教とのインタビューです。
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay after his meeting with Cardinal William Levada
At the conclusion of the meeting that Bishop Bernard Fellay and his two General Assistants had at the Vatican with Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X answered our questions.
How did this meeting go?
The meeting was conducted with great courtesy and with equally great candor, because for the sake of honesty the Society of St. Pius X refuses to evade the problems that remain. Moreover the theological discussions that took place during these past two years were held in this same spirit.
When I stated on August 15 of this year that we were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council, I also made sure to explain that when it comes to dogmas, like the doctrine of the Trinity, we are quite obviously in agreement when we find them mentioned in Vatican II. One sentence must not be taken out of its context. It is to the great credit of our theological talks that they seriously examined and elucidated all these doctrinal problems.
The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you. Can you give us any particulars?
This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”; it was handed over to us for in-depth study. Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you. However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.
On the subject of this doctrinal preamble, to the extent that this does not concern its confidentiality, can you confirm that it contains, as announced in the press release, a distinction between what is de fide [essential to the faith]―to which the Society fully adheres―and what is dependent on a pastoral council, as Vatican II itself claimed to be, and thus could be subjected to criticism without calling the faith into question?
This new distinction was not only announced in the press release; I have personally heard it from various sources. As early as 2005, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told me, after I spent five hours explaining to him all the objections to Vatican II that the Society of St. Pius X had formulated: “I cannot say that I agree with everything that you have said, but what you have said does not mean that you are outside the Church. Write to the pope therefore and ask him to lift the excommunication.”
Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion. The only thing that I can say, because it is part of the press release, is that this preamble contains “certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to "sentire cum Ecclesia" [thinking with the Church]. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.” There you have it; no more and no less.
As for the canonical status that is said to have been proposed to the Society of St. Pius X, on the condition that it adheres to the doctrinal preamble: there has been talk about a [personal] prelature rather than an ordinariate; it this correct?
As you correctly note, this canonical status is conditional; only later on will we be able to see the exact modality of it; it still remains a subject for discussion.
When do you think you will give your answer to the proposal in the doctrinal preamble?
As soon as I have taken the time necessary to study this document, and to consult with those who are chiefly responsible for the Society of St. Pius X, because in such an important matter I have promised my confreres not to make a decision without consulting them first.
But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls. Our Rosary Crusade, which continues for several more months, must be intensified so as to enable us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever. (DICI no. 240 dated September 14, 2011)
愛する兄弟姉妹の皆様、
先日、ブログ「バチカン・インフォメーション・サービス」による英語訳のバチカンの聖ピオ十世会に関する公式発表をご紹介しましたが、日本語訳を作って下さった方がおりますので、感謝してご紹介します。なお、この日本語訳は、原文のフランス語及びイタリア語に忠実であるように訳されております。英語訳は、ブログ Rorate Caeli に掲示されているもの、或いは、DICI に掲載されているものの方が忠実です。
2011年9月14日、水曜日
2011年9月14日、教理聖省の本部に於いて、当聖省長官であり『エクレジア・デイ』教皇庁立委員会の委員長でもあるウィリアム・レヴァダ枢機卿（William Levada）と、当聖省で事務長を務めるイエズス会のルイス・ラダリア（Luis Ladaria）大司教、そして当教皇庁立委員会の秘書グィド・ポッゾ（Guido Pozzo）司教らは、聖ピオ十世会総長のベルナール・フェレー司教並びに、総長補佐のニクラウス・フルーガー（Niklaus Pfluger）神父と、アラン・マルク・ネリ（Alain-Marc Nely）神父と面会した。
聖ピオ十世会総長から教皇聖下ベネディクト十六世宛てに為された2008年12月15日の訴えの続きとして、教皇様は、ルフェーブル大司教が聖別した四名の司教に対する破門宣告を撤回し、また同時に、教義上の困難と問題を乗り越え、現存する折損を癒す目的で、当司祭会との教義上の話し合いの開始を決定した。
教皇様の意志に従い、聖ピオ十世会及び教理聖省から選ばれた顧問たちで構成された共同の研究委員会が設立され、それは2009年10月から2011年4月の間に、ローマで八回に亘って面会した。これらの話し合いの目標は、論争のある諸点についての主要な教義上の問題を特定しかつ深く検討する事であり、双方の教義的見解とその動機を明らかにするという目的を果たした。
第二バチカン公会議を聖伝との断絶とする『断絶の解釈』（2005年12月22日、ローマ教皇庁へのベネディクト十六世の訓話で言及された解釈）と対立するものとして、カトリック信仰の完全性を守る事に対して聖ピオ十世会が提示した懸念と要求を考慮し、教理聖省は、使徒座との完全な和解に至る為の根本的基礎として、教義に関する前置き文書の承認であるとし、この文章は2011年9月14日に会合の間に手渡された。この前置き文書は、公教会の教導権に忠実であること、また『sentire cum Ecclesia＜公教会と共に考える＞』ことを保証するのに不可欠な、カトリック教義を解釈する教義的な原理や基準を述べている。同時に当文書は、第二バチカン公会議の諸公文書とそれ以降の教導権に含まれる個別の表現や言い回しに関する検討及び神学的解釈について、正当な討論の可能性を残している。
さらに同会合に於いては、聖ピオ十世会の教会法的な解決策を模索した幾つかの要素からなる提案が為されたが、もしかしたら期待された和解が続くかもしれない。
以下は、「レヴァダ枢機卿との面会」後のフェレー司教とのインタビューです。
Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay after his meeting with Cardinal William Levada
At the conclusion of the meeting that Bishop Bernard Fellay and his two General Assistants had at the Vatican with Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X answered our questions.
How did this meeting go?
The meeting was conducted with great courtesy and with equally great candor, because for the sake of honesty the Society of St. Pius X refuses to evade the problems that remain. Moreover the theological discussions that took place during these past two years were held in this same spirit.
When I stated on August 15 of this year that we were in agreement on the fact that we did not agree about the Second Vatican Council, I also made sure to explain that when it comes to dogmas, like the doctrine of the Trinity, we are quite obviously in agreement when we find them mentioned in Vatican II. One sentence must not be taken out of its context. It is to the great credit of our theological talks that they seriously examined and elucidated all these doctrinal problems.
The joint press release by the Vatican and the Society announced that a doctrinal document was delivered to you and that a canonical solution was proposed to you. Can you give us any particulars?
This document is entitled “Doctrinal Preamble”; it was handed over to us for in-depth study. Hence it is confidential, and you will understand why I say no more about it to you. However the term “preamble” does indicate that acceptance of it is a preliminary condition for any canonical recognition of the Society of St. Pius X on the part of the Holy See.
On the subject of this doctrinal preamble, to the extent that this does not concern its confidentiality, can you confirm that it contains, as announced in the press release, a distinction between what is de fide [essential to the faith]―to which the Society fully adheres―and what is dependent on a pastoral council, as Vatican II itself claimed to be, and thus could be subjected to criticism without calling the faith into question?
This new distinction was not only announced in the press release; I have personally heard it from various sources. As early as 2005, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told me, after I spent five hours explaining to him all the objections to Vatican II that the Society of St. Pius X had formulated: “I cannot say that I agree with everything that you have said, but what you have said does not mean that you are outside the Church. Write to the pope therefore and ask him to lift the excommunication.”
Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion. The only thing that I can say, because it is part of the press release, is that this preamble contains “certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to "sentire cum Ecclesia" [thinking with the Church]. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium.” There you have it; no more and no less.
As for the canonical status that is said to have been proposed to the Society of St. Pius X, on the condition that it adheres to the doctrinal preamble: there has been talk about a [personal] prelature rather than an ordinariate; it this correct?
As you correctly note, this canonical status is conditional; only later on will we be able to see the exact modality of it; it still remains a subject for discussion.
When do you think you will give your answer to the proposal in the doctrinal preamble?
As soon as I have taken the time necessary to study this document, and to consult with those who are chiefly responsible for the Society of St. Pius X, because in such an important matter I have promised my confreres not to make a decision without consulting them first.
But I can assure you that our decision will be made for the good of the Church and of souls. Our Rosary Crusade, which continues for several more months, must be intensified so as to enable us to obtain, through the intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church, the graces of light and strength that we need more than ever. (DICI no. 240 dated September 14, 2011)
