SSPX MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY?

I begin this post with a snippet from a recent item on Roccos Palmo's Whispers in the Loggia, which concerns Bishop Bernard Fellay, leader of the schismatic "Society of St Pius X":

In an extended interview with the Society's official news organ released last week, the SSPX superior said that "Rome no longer makes total acceptance of Vatican II a prerequisite for the canonical solution" of the fraternity's return.
"[T]he attitude of the official Church is what changed," Fellay said. "We did not."
He added that the Society "were not the ones who asked for an agreement; the pope is the one who wants to recognize us."

This is disturbing on a number of levels, presuming it reflects accurately the mind-set of the Vatican officials (including Pope Benedict) with regard to the authority of the documents of Vatican II.  If the SSPX need not make "total acceptance of Vatican II" a criterion for good standing as Catholics, the fundamenal questions are 1.  why not?  and  2.  which teachings are now going to be regarded as "optional," and on what basis?

The flag-waving issue for this breakaway group has long been the Novus Ordo Missae, the revision of the Church's liturgy of the Mass made in 1969 under the authority of the Consilium set up to implement the Vatican Council's liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.  If the issue is their permission to carry on with their preference for the older form of the Mass (presumably the 1962 edition of the "Tridentine Mass") then it seems they are only in line with the permission that has already been given by Pope Benedict with his motu proprio decree Summorum Pontificum (sadly, only in Latin and Hungarian on the Vatican's website) which gives great freedom for priests to celebrate the "Extraordinary Form" (aka, Tridentine Mass).

So what, then, are the aspects of Vatican II that Bp Fellay implies do not need to be accepted?  This is the worrisome part, for famously the SSPX rejected Vatican II not only for its (to them, unauthorized) changes in the liturgy, but also for their embrace of non-Catholic Christians, non-Christian religions (especially the Jews), and its advocacy of religious liberty.  While the pastoral constitution on the Church and the modern world Gaudium et Spes was certainly offensive to this group, other documents are far more problematic for them:  Nostra Aetate on the Church's relation to non-Christian religions; Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenical relations with non-Catholics; and Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom. 

Are there implications (not, at this point, anyway, denied or clarified by the Vatican) that one or more of these documents (or specific content in them) is now to be considered "optional"?

Beyond this, the idea that there can be a soft-pedaling of Church teaching in the name of reconciling a defiant faction is at least curious. 

More to come?  I hope not much more...

But as our observance of the 50th anniversary of Vatican II will begin later this year, in conjunction with Pope Benedict's calling for a "Year of Faith," Our Savior's Adult Religious Education will focus on precisely these Vatican II documents, along with special presentations on the issues by guest speakers.  Stay tuned (or see www.oursaviorparish.org) for updates.