.

Wine is very easy to make. You press the juice out of grapes and allow it to ferment. You want to put it in a clean container and seal it with an air lock, such as you can get at any home brew store.

You don't even need to press the juice yourself. You can get raw grape juice at a local winery and use that. I don't know if they have wineries in India, but that's how you do it.

Some priests grow their own grapes and make their own wine. The grapes naturally have yeast on the skins, which gets into the juice when you squeeze them, and causes the sugars to ferment. I would recommend using a hygrometer to measure the alcoholic content, since you want to be sure it is wine before it is used for Mass. I think the rules say the wine should be at least 8% alcohol (normal table wine is 12-14%, so this is on the low end).

I would suggest he go to a local home brew shop, if such things exist there, and ask them how to make his own wine. But really, wine is not difficult to make, which is part of the reason God used it for the Mass.

All true.  I've made quite a bit myself.  However there are specific canonical requirements, the details of which I don't recall.  I don't believe it's limit to simply ferment the juice, but you must use the whole grape and only press the skins once.  Again, I don't recall the details.

Thank you for these words, that means so much especially now. I saw statement on sspx.org and they try again to distance themselves. It doesn't look like a sincere repentance and apology. I feel sorry for many priests that are good and trying their best not to drift towards modernism.
Maybe SSPX leadrrship and Rome already made a secret agreement. And they are doing it slowly, not to shock ther faithful laity, and priests.

This case with now deceased bishop Hounder, holy oils, is a sign also.
It's outrageous that bishop Felkay said that he accepts 95 % of Vatican II!!!
There is clear departure from the defined doctrine, in some texts and docuмent. One heresy or error is too much.

Yes, the SSPX (the organization, leadership) is not right with God in this matter. They are not good willed.

That doesn't mean every priest and every parishioner is evil, or participated in this evil. So that's reason #1 not to despair.

Reason #2 is that the SSPX is not the WHOLE of Traditional Catholicism. There are many other groups keeping the Faith, and frankly doing a better job of it at the moment. The Resistance, for starters. But there are some sedevacantist groups as well that I would have to say are keeping the Faith (those that don't get schismatic like the Dimond Brothers or Fr. Cekada with his "anti Una cuм" nonsense novel doctrine). And there are micro "groups" of 1 chapel all over the place, affiliated with no one, but keeping the Faith.

And yes, it only takes one heresy to become a heretic and lose the entire Faith. The Faith hangs together like Our Lord's main garment, woven without seam. You can't just cut a piece off, without the whole thing unraveling into thread.

And yes, saying that "Vatican II is 95% good" is a clear red flag, a sign that one has lost the plot with regards to Traditional Catholicism/Vatican II resistance. That's like saying a poisoned beverage is "99% good" because only 1% of it is arsenic. That's foolish! The whole thing needs to be thrown out before someone gets hurt!

+Fellay and others need to point out what parts of Vatican II are "Catholic". Because if they happened to repeat some truth accidentally, it wasn't VATICAN II because that wasn't unique to Vatican II or defined there! You could still say ALL of Vatican II is from satan and must be thrown out. Because even the apparent truths in Vatican II docuмents are A) found many places elsewhere, so nothing would be lost, and B) those truths are mere VEHICLES to deliver the poison. You can't have pure evil. A rotten apple needs an apple. Without those truths uttered by Vatican II, no one would have accepted the heresy! So even the TRUTHS in Vatican II served the devil. So again I say, the whole council needs to be cast into the rubbish bin of history, flushed down the toilet into HELL where it belongs.

satan quoted the Psalms during the temptation of Our Lord after His forty day fast. "He hath given his angels charge over thee...". Nevertheless, ALL of the devil's words and works are evil and to be opposed. You don't call his stolen words from Scripture "the devil's words" do you? No, those quotations are excluded from what we excoriate as being "the devil, his words, and his works". They aren't *his* to begin with. But we must oppose 100% of what proceeds from the devil's (or Vatican II's) mouth, because EVEN SCRIPTURE QUOTES and other truths coming from that infernal throat are ONLY UTTERED for the purpose of evil, deception, and the destruction of souls. Even truths or Scripture quotes become part of an infernal machine, an infernal package. So the fact remains: 100% of what the devil uttered -- the whole package taken as a whole, as it were -- was evil and to be opposed. You don't say, "The devil is 30% good, because Scripture!"

You can't love or serve God too much.
You can't say too many good things about Our Lady and her many virtues.
And you can't excoriate, oppose, or hate Vatican II enough. It IS a superheresy. Bishop Fellay was dead wrong when he specifically mocked this idea. That's when I knew he was a lost cause.

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration Proof of Treason 2012
Continuation pp. 46
On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre expressly condemned several times this new
Profession of Faith, which author is none other than Cardinal Ratzinger:
'The new Profession of Faith which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly contains the acceptance of the Council and its consequences . . . How can we accept it? (Le Bourget, 19 Nov. 1989)'
'The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm consecrated by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 Profession of Faith. (Spiritual Journey, p.10-11)'
'That is what creates a conflict for us because, for example, at the same time that Rome gives the authorization to say the Mass of all time to the Fraternity of St. Peter or to the Abbey of Barroux and the other groups, they ask the young priests to sign a profession of faith through which they must accept the spirit of the Council. It is a contradiction.” (Friedrichshafen, 29 April 1990)
'It is a very grave act. Because it asks all those who have rejoined, or who could do so, to make a profession of faith in the Council docuмents and in the post-conciliar reforms. For us, it is impossible.
(Fideliter, no. 79, January 1991, p.4)'
'This formula [of the profession of faith], such as it is, is dangerous. This well demonstrates the spirit of this people with whom it is impossible to agree. (Fideliter, no. 70, July 1989, p.16; no. 73, p.12 and no. 76, p. 11)'
Thus, to accept this new Profession of Faith and to want to remain faithful to Tradition, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, is a contradiction, because the Profession supposes the acceptance of the Council and its reforms.
In addition, Bishop Fellay, in the Note joined to the quoted text, also accepts the 1989 “Oath of Fidelity,” which in turn has officially replaced the Anti-modernist Oath in the conciliar Church!
One should recall that in his DP2 of 30 November 2011, Bishop Fellay had chosen the Antimodernist Oath in place of the 1989 Oath of Fidelity . . . but in April 2012 he again made a complete volte-face!
Thus, if Bishop Fellay put aside the Anti-modernist Oath, which is one of our best weapons against the neo-modernists, to accept the new Oath of Fidelity of 1989, which precisely favors the modernist errors, that represents a considerable step backwards in the resistance of the Society
against modern errors.
Remember what Bishop Fellay wrote in his 24 January 2009 “Letter to Friends and Benefactors”
where he quotes his own letter to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos after the lifting of the
“excommunications”:
'We are ready to write the Creed with our blood, to sign the anti-modernist oath, the profession of faith of Pius IV; we accept and make our own all the councils up to and including Vatican II, about which we voice reservations.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Bishop Fellay has held contradictory points.
Sometimes he thinks traditionally, sometimes he accepts the formulas of the conciliar church; and,
what is even more ambiguous, sometimes he accepts both in the same docuмent!
pp. 47
Furthermore, in the same Note to paragraph II, we find citations to canons 749 and 750 of the New Code of Canon Law, which deal with the magisterium and the adherence due to its teaching, either infallible or authentic.
We have already exposed the fact that the current authorities consider the conciliar and postconciliar teachings as being part of the “authentic magisterium” of the Church. Thus, in practice, the Society could no longer be able to attack it. So there is nothing left for them other than the possibility of accepting them, tacitly at first, then more and more explicitly, as the rallied communities to Modernist Rome have already done, one after the other since 1988. The Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux, in France, is a good example of this evolution.
So when one sees the serious concessions made by Bishop Fellay in paragraph II, one has the
right to ask: where are the doctrinal firmness and supernatural prudence that we have the
right to expect from the Superior General of the Society? Where are these so-called “graces of state” that he and his defenders have invoked when demanding submission from the members of the Society?
But, it gets worse. If Bishop Fellay accepted in paragraph II the question of principle on the submission to the current “magisterium,” he will accept in paragraph III the practical applications of these same false principles.

C. Paragraph III is indisputably the worst part of the whole docuмent.
This paragraph III, the longest in the Doctrinal Declaration, treats the practical applications
concerning the controversial questions on the exercise of authority by the pope and bishops, and in
particular, on the authority of the conciliar and post-conciliar Magisterium in relations with
Tradition.
It was to this compromise that Cardinal Levada’s theologians wanted to bring Bishop Fellay,
because this paragraph treats precisely about the most controversial points between the Society and
conciliar Rome.
A few months before the DD, Bishop Fellay had already underlined the perfidy of paragraph III
of the Roman Preamble in his letter of 12 January 2013:
'The point that is causing the most difficulty is paragraph III . . . this paragraph III of the Preamble would like to oblige us to accept all the difficult points. '
So Bishop Fellay was well aware of the serious danger this paragraph presented. If it was so dangerous, it should have been totally rejected.
At first look, one has the false impression that Bishop Fellay had radically “transformed”
Cardinal Lavada’s paragraph III in a totally new way, with traditional assertions. But, this is only the appearance…
In fact, when one compares Bishop Fellay’s paragraph III with Cardinal Levada’s text in DP1,
one notices that there are only a few changes and these changes are of no real importance.
pp. 48
Bishop Fellay divided paragraph III into seven points by adding a separate question on the new
Mass and the new sacraments.
Let us now examine in detail the different points of this paragraph III.
No. 1: The Authority of the Pope and the Bishops
Bishop Fellay here copied, word for word, what was in the Roman DP1:
'We declare that we accept the doctrine on the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops, with its head, the Pope, taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I and the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, chapter III (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), as explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa praevia of that same chapter'.
We have already commented above on the problems posed by no. 25 of Lumen gentium
which makes up part of chapter III, which contains numbers 18-29 inclusive.
Number 25 of Lumen gentium asks for adherence to the ordinary magisterium of the bishops,
which is in itself consistent with the spirit of Vatican I (1870), but impossible to accept it today as a consequence of the current crisis in the Church, with all bishops corrupted with a conciliar spirit. By contrast, in the second passage of chapter III, there is a veritable contradiction between the false notion of collegiality and the traditional teaching of the Church on Church authority. What is very grave here is that Bishop Fellay accepts that the doctrine on such an important point as the authority of the Pope and the bishops, could have as reference Vatican I and Vatican II at the same time! This fact does not make this docuмent “better,” but, to the contrary, more dangerous, by spreading confusion, because these docuмents are openly in contradiction. In fact, this text causes confusion because one does not know if the doctrine on the Roman Pontiff and the bishops of which it is speaking about comes from Vatican I or from Vatican II!
Therefore, in case of a disagreement between these two texts, it will be the teaching of Vatican II that will be retained, because it is the current Conciliar authority which exercises the “living” Magisterium.
If there is a point upon which Vatican II has broken with Tradition, it is precisely the new “democratic” notion of authority in the Church, the error of “collegiality. Note 17”

The most serious application of collegiality of Council Vatican II is the establishment of two
supreme powers in the Church: one of the Pope alone, the other of the Pope with the “college” of

Note 17 The Church always traditionally taught that the authority of the Pope is monarchial, and the Church hierarchy is “pyramidal,” with the Pope at the top point, below are the bishops, then the priests, etc. Vatican II, on the contrary, inspired by modern democracy, allows “consultative and deliberative” power of governing on all the levels of the Church, diminishing or destroying the personal authority of the Pope for the whole Church, the bishops in their dioceses, and even the priests in their parishes.
pp. 49
bishops, and this in an ordinary, permanent manner, and not extraordinary, as it is the case during
ecuмenical councils.
Thus, the doctrine of chapter III of Lumen gentium mentioned here cleraly contradicts the traditional teaching on the subject of the supreme authority in the Church.
The Nota praevia, which was added to Lumen gentium so as to try to clarify the question of the
supreme authority in the Church in a more traditional sense and to reassure the conservative bishops
of the Council, does not have any effect today, because it is no longer mentioned in the new Code
of Canon Law, as Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out:
'In the new Code of Canon Law, there are two supreme powers in the Church: there is the power of the pope, who has the supreme power, and then the pope with the bishops . . . This has never been seen in the Church . . . It is there to limit the power of the pope. Then, the explanatory note [nota praevia] of the Council, practically, does not take into account the new Code of Canon Law. (Spiritual Conference at Écône, 100A, 20 May 1983.)'
Therefore, the new Code only renders into “canonical language” the error of collegiality taught
by Lumen gentium. Herein lies, in chapter III of Lumen gentium, at a highest level of the Church, the
conciliar error of collegiality, and Bishop Fellay accepts it, though it is openly in opposition to the
doctrine of Pastor aeternus of Council Vatican I!
Yet here is what Bishop Fellay himself said on this point in his 12 January 2012 letter to Cardinal
Levada, a few months before his DD:
We stumbled over . . . collegiality, of which the ‘subiectum quoque’ remains an ambiguous term, even when clarified by the Nota praevia (LG22).
Thus, three months earlier Bishop Fellay recognized that even with the Nota praevia this passage no. 25 of Lumen gentium on collegiality was unacceptable, because it is ambiguous, and now in his DD he finds it acceptable!
This is one more example of “Fellay 1” against “Fellay 2”!

No. 2: The Authority of the Magisterium of the Church
In particular, in the role of interpreting the Deposit of Revelation (Holy Scripture and Tradition):
'We acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium, to which alone has been entrusted the task of interpreting authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down,(Cf. Pius XII. Encyclical Letter Humani generis. Denz. 3886) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the apostles, i.e., the deposit of faith.' "(VATICAN I. Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus. Denz. 3070.)
The first part, taken from DP1, is traditional and makes reference to the encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII.
pp. 50
Then Bishop Fellay adds (“recalling . . .”) a well known quotation from Pastor aeternus of Vatican I on the limits of the Magisterium of the Church, which reminds us that this teaching authority cannot teach “a new doctrine.”
We should note that in the Doctrinal Preamble (DP3) of 13 June 2012 presnted by Rome,
Cardinal Levada accepted this addition, and even completed the rest of the quotation from Pastor
aeternus concerning the promise that the Apostolic See will remain “unimpaired by any error.”
(Denz. 1836)
This text does not pose a doctrinal problem in itself because it appeals to two traditional texts.
But all the same, it remains a dangerous ambiguity. By accepting this magisterial authority,
despite the limitations mentioned of Pastor aeternus, under the current conditions is tantamount to
accept leaving on the hands of the current “magisterium” the interpretation of Holy Scripture and
Tradition. This text implies that the SSPX has confidence in the current “magisterium” and that we are ready to submit to it. Thus this statement leaves an open door to the conciliar novelties the new “magisterium” would like to impose upon us, with the false assertion that they are “in continuity” with the Traditional magisterium of the Church.
What do we see about this “magisterium” since Vatican II? Can we say that since that council Holy Scripture and Tradition have been correctly interpreted? Can we hope that this is going to change under the current circuмstances?
Certainly not! Evidence shows us that it will not and that this will continue so long as the current
“magisterium” continues on the same erroneous path since Vatican II.
No. 3: The “Progress” of Tradition:
In particular, in being “the living transmission of Revelation” to us:
'Tradition is the living transmission of Revelation "usque ad nos"[1] and the Church. in her doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuates and transmits to all generations all that she is and all that she believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,[2] not by some contrary innovation [3]but by a better understanding of the depositum Fidei.' I [4]
[1] COUNCIL OF TRENT. Denz. 1501: "...This truth and instruction [which] are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us,"
[2] Cf. VATICAN COUNCIL II. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 and 10; Denz.
4209-4210.
[3] VATICAN I. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius. Dens. 3020: "thence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never he recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. 'Therefore... let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries: but let it be solely in its own
pp. 51
genus, namely in the same dogma with the same sense and the same understanding. (ST. VINCENT OF LERINS. Commonitorium. 23.3 [n. 28])"
[4] Cf. VATICAN I. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius. Denz. 3011; Antimodernist Oath.
no. 4; Pros XII. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis. Dens. 3886: VATICAN COUNCIL II.
Dogmatic Constitution Del Verbum. 10. Denz. 4213.
–––
Once again we find ambiguity here because two conflicting texts are placed side by side. The
first text is from the Council of Trent, at least for what concerns Tradition as being transmitted “to
us,” but the word “living” was added by Rome in DP1 of 2011. The other text is from Vatican II,
teaching that “Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.”
Bishop Fellay borrowed this text from DP1, but he added, “not by some contrary innovation but by a better understanding of the depositum Fidei.” This addition was accepted by Rome in their response of 13 June 2012, but Rome added “under the supervision of the Magisterium, ‘whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’” (Die verbum, 10.)
There are two problems here: (1) the erroneous Modernist notion of a “living” Tradition which “progresses,” and (2) the fact that, as a last resort, it is the current Magisterium (post-Conciliar) which is the “witness” authorized by this transmission.
(1) The notions of the “living” transmission of Revelation and Tradition by the “progress” of dogma are typically grave Modernist errors.
Here is what Pope St. Pius X said in Pascendi, in quoting the Modernists themselves:
'Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed . . . For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. (no. 13)'
The addition of Bp. Fellay pointing out that the progress of Tradition excludes all “contrary innovation” did not make the text “orthodox” for two reasons:
– first, because this addition is ineffective, as we will see in (2) because in the last instance it will be the current post-Conciliar Magisterium who decides if the conciliar or post-conciliar doctrines represent any “contrary innovation” or not;
– then, because Rome accepted this addition in its response of 13 June 2012, even though they hold to the Modernist notion of evolution and the progress of dogma.
(2) Thus, nothing can prevent the current “magisterium” (whose authority is accepted by Bishop Fellay, cf. no.2) from declaring, according to the “hermeneutic of continuity,” that the conciliar doctrines, e.g. religious liberty, represent a homogenous progress with regard to Tradition. This is why, without a clear rejection of conciliar errors, it is impossible and extremely imprudent to recognize a priori the authority of their “magisterium.”
But, let’s again quote “Fellay 1” against “Fellay 2,” who contradicts himself one more time. In the 12 January 2012 letter, about the homogenous progress of Tradition, he said this:
'It is the magisterium’s practice, when it promulgates some innovation, to prove its continuity with Tradition,as in when it proclaims a new dogma. Now the problem here is not so much the doctrine as the deed: some of the Second Vatican Council texts and some subsequent reforms are not consistent with this doctrine.'
pp. 52
The contradiction between these two positions of Bp. Fellay is flagrant, because in January 2012 he professed the Catholic doctrine, but the following April he professed the conciliar doctrine! So, which is the true “Bishop Fellay”? Without a doubt, the one of the DD, because it is his most recent position, therefore the final one (because Bishop has not condemned the DD since he signed it. To the contrary, he happily presented it in the explicative note of Cor unum 104).
No. 4: The criteria of interpretation between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council texts in general.
'The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican Council II which Council in turn clarifies—i.e., deepens and makes more explicit over time—certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually'.
Bishop Fellay has taken this text from the Preamble presented to him by Rome without making any modification, and puts aside a note he added concerning the sacramentality of the episcopacy astaught by Vatican II. In the response of 13 June 2012, Rome had no objection to anything in this text.
The stakes here are very high: how should we understand this statement saying that the “entirety” of Tradition is the criteria for the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council? And vice-versa, is it true that the same Council Vatican II “deepens and explains” what has not been implicitly contained in Tradition? So it is a question here about “the council in the light of Tradition,” as well as “Tradition in the light of the council”!
In this fourth paragraph of the Doctrinal Declaration, this question is treated in general, that is, as a question of principle concerning this double relationship. In the following (fifth) paragraph it will be more specifically about the doctrines taught by the council. Now, let us analyze in detail paragraph four.
The first part of the text (Tradition as criteria for interpreting Vatican II) would be true if one understood it from a traditional point of view, that is, Tradition judging the erroneous teachings of the Second Vatican Council and condemning them. But the text is ambiguous, because it is not what the conciliar authors meant to say in this passage. Indeed, Bishop Fellay borrowed these lines from the Roman Preamble.
To start with, why to speak of “the entire Tradition”? This is not a traditional theological expression, because it would lead to the understanding that it applies not only to Tradition before Vatican II, but also during and after the council, so as to understand it these days. It appears clear now why Benedict XVI, in his decree lifting the “excommunications” of the SSPX bishops in 2009 stated that the Second Vatican Council: “contains the entire doctrinal history of the Church.”
pp. 53
Because, as we have seen in paragraph no. 3, according to the Modernist concept, “Tradition” is “living” and continually “in progress”; it did not stop before Vatican II, so it continues to progress today. Therefore, to speak of Vatican II as belonging to “the entire Tradition,” is only a disguised way of accepting the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
One can see here that Bishop Fellay contradicts himself once again. In his letter of 12 January 2012 to Rome, rejecting their Preamble, he said that he had a problem with “the application of this principle [the criteria for interpreting the Second Vatican Council] to the novelties of the Councilwhich are clearly in rupture or discontinuity with the Magisterium of all time,” but since 15 April 2012 he has implicitly stated in the DD that the novelties of the Council are part of the “entire Tradition.”
The second part is overtly false and pernicious.
How can Bishop Fellay state that the Second Vatican Council is a “light which illuminates the life and doctrine of the Church,” even though for 50 years the council (has) been the source of destruction of the state of grace in many souls, because of its serious contradictions with Church doctrine?
The council in this point attacks two visible marks of the Catholic Church: the holiness and the unity of the faith. Vatican II’s doctrines are a rather liberal and modernist cloud of darkness that obscures the light of Catholic Tradition! In addition, putting aside the question on the sacramentality of the episcopacy (which was not a common doctrine), Vatican II has done nothing beneficial for the Church! This Council is rather a real “tumorous cancer” which is trying to destroy the Church.
In addition, we cannot say that the council “deepens and explains” the “implicitly present” concepts of the Church! The three principal errors of the Council: religious liberty, collegiality, and ecuмenism are neither contained in Holy Scripture and in Tradition. They rather find their inspiration in the French Revolution with the triple slogan of “liberty, equality and fraternity”! This was explicitly admitted by Cardinal Suenens, who called the Council “the 1789 of the Church.”
If we study closely the Modernist schemas discussed during Vatican II, we notice that they totally lack any support in the Traditional Magisterium.
Cardinal Ratzinger, in his book The Principles of Catholic Theology said, regarding Gaudium et spes: “It suffices to say that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 [by the French Revolution]” (Ignatius Press, 1987, pp. 381-2)
pp. 54
No. 5: The Criteria of Interpretation Between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council Texts on Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty
'The statements of Vatican Council II and of the subsequent papal Magisterium relative to the relation of the Catholic Church to the non-Catholic Christian confessions, and also to the civic duty of religion and to the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is difficult to reconcile with the preceding doctrinal statements of the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole and uninterrupted Tradition, in a way consistent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these statements that might lead to a presentation of Catholic doctrine that is opposed to or breaks with Tradition and with that Magisterium.'
Here we are in front of the worst part of the worst paragraph of the Doctrinal Declaration, because it makes serious doctrinal concessions to the two great conciliar errors: ecuмenism and religious liberty.
Bishop Fellay’s text is taken almost entirely from no. 3 of the Roman Preamble of 14 September 2011, with the exception he added the expression “whose formulation is difficult to reconcile” in place of “would appear to be certain.”
Bishop Fellay thus accepts a text written by neo-modernists, who have only one intention, clearly different from ours: to integrate the conciliar docuмents into Tradition, through the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
In the 13 June 2012 version corrected by Rome, Cardinal Levada reestablished the original text
of 2011. Paragraph No. 5 is the logical consequence of the concessions made in paragraph No. 4, where Bishop Fellay accepted “Tradition in the light of the Council”!
In other words, if Bishop Fellay accepted in paragraph 4 of the DD that the council expounds
doctrines not yet formulated by the Church, paragraph no. 5 is only its explicit application:
ecuмenism and religious liberty! What renders this paragraph no. 5 totally unacceptable is that it is all about very grave conciliar errors like of ecuмenism and religious liberty; collegiality having been already accepted in paragraph no. 1.
First, we remark here that Bishop Fellay speaks only about the “formulation” of the conciliar
doctrines of ecuмenism and religious liberty, and not with the doctrines themselves, which are erroneous,. By saying that he suggests that it would be enough to “clarify” or “formulate” them differently, and in this way they would be acceptable. Then, the expression to accept the interpretation of the council and the later Magisterium “in the light of Tradition,” admittedly used by Archbishop Lefebvre, is not a good argument. Here is how this subject was explained in the March-April 2002 issue no. 73 of Nouvelles de Chrétienté [a SSPX publication] (p.4):
Some object that Archbishop Lefebvre himself said this phrase, “I accept the Council, interpreted in the light of Tradition.” It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre expressed that before pope John-Paul II in October 1978. Firstly, it was not he who conceived it, but Cardinal Ratzinger. Note,
however, that he did not subsequently return to it and it was not in the Protocol of 5 May 1988.
pp. 55
Indeed, Archbishop Lefebvre reported that it did not have the same meaning for modernist Rome as for us. The answer given by Cardinal Ratzinger to the “Dubia” on religious liberty as well as the interviews that Archbishop Lefebvre had with the aforesaid Cardinal before the 1988 consecrations thoroughly proved it: “There is only one Church; it is the Church of Vatican II. Vatican II represents Tradition.” (The words of Cardinal Ratzinger as quoted by
Archbishop Lefebvre in the press conference on 15 June 1988.)
But it is dangerous to quote John-Paul II in this area, and to want to adopt his words, “This was the criterion used by Pope John-Paul II when he spoke of the ‘integral doctrine of the Council, ’that means, as he explained, that ‘doctrine must be understood in the light of Sacred Tradition and brought back to the constant Magisterium of the Holy Church’” (John Paul II, discourse at the First Plenary Meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals, 5 November 1979.)
[“Clarifications about the Fathers of Campos on Their Recognition by the Holy See – 18 January 2002” at laportelatine.org.]
So Bishop Fellay accepted in 2012 what 'Nouvelles de Chrétienté' considered to be dangerous in 2002. Recognizing Vatican II “in the light of Tradition” is an argument that is ambiguous, relative, subjective, and used to convince the traditionally minded representatives to accept the Second Vatican Council, even though its doctrine and its interpretation of words are entirely different for conciliar Rome!
Thus it is a dangerous argument (to borrow the expression quoted in Nouvelles de Chrétienté No. 73), because “to accept” these affirmations “in the light of Tradition” does not mean the same thing for Rome as it does for us.
Bishop Williamson makes the point on Paragraph No. 5:
'The first part here [must be understood, etc.] is perfectly true, so long as it means that any Conciliar novelty “difficult to reconcile” will be flatly rejected if it objectively contradicts previous Church teaching. (Eleison Comments No. 300, 13 April 2013.)'
Thus, this first part leads to the understanding that a contradiction would be possible between the Council and Tradition, but in the second part, we will see that they have excluded precisely this possibility.
The poison is thus more evident in the second part, starting from the words “without accepting.”
Here again are Bishop Williamson’s excellent remarks on this text:
'But [the first part] is directly contradicted . . . when [it] says that no Conciliar novelty may be
“interpreted” as being [opposed to or] in rupture with Tradition. (Eleison Comments No. 300, 13 April
2013.) '
By the words “without accepting any interpretation, etc.” Bishop Fellay makes explicit in a modernist way what he means by “must be understood, etc.” He forbids rejecting anything of the Council as being a rupture with Tradition. So he validates here, implicitly but very clearly, the hermeneutic of continuity of Benedict XVI.
pp. 56
One could sum up so as to refute this major concession by Bishop Fellay to religious liberty, by recalling the importance of the fight that led Archbishop Lefebvre against this error during and after the Council. It was against this error in particular that he wrote the book They Have Uncrowned Him, on Christ the King; a book written exclusively to refute precisely this error of the Council: religious liberty!
And on ecuмenism? With Bp. Fellay’s DD we are a long way from the firmness of the excellent study made by the Society in 2004 titled From Ecuмenism to Silent Apostasy. One can well see once again that the liberal “Fellay 2” has prevailed over the traditional “Fellay 1.”

No. 6: The Opportuneness of the Doctrinal Discussions.
This point treats the controversial expressions of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium:
'For this reason it is legitimate to promote, through a legitimate discussion, the study and the theological explanation of expressions or formulations of Vatican Council II and of the subsequent Magisterium, should they seem irreconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church'.
Note that Bishop Fellay used the term “legitimate” twice. Why did he not use the word “necessary” instead of the weaker expression “legitimate”? Because the first implies a duty of the two parties, while the second implies only convenience or opportunity for the discussions which will only be granted if Rome wishes it. Let us recall that Modernist Rome, since 1988, has always promised to have “legitimate discussions” with all who rejoined Rome, but no formal discussions have ever been established between these communities and Rome.
Anyway, the discussions do not risk going very far, because Rome only accepts discussion on
insignificant points, always leaving the “orthodoxy” of the council and the “post-conciliar
magisterium” untouched. So what hope is there for any “legitimate discussions”?
The text confirms its ambiguities through the use of such words as “expressions or formulations,” which imply that what is wrong in the formulas of Vatican II are not their content and heart of doctrine, but only the way in which they are expressed. So, it is, in the end, an “accidental” difficulty which does not question at all the conciliar doctrine itself.
Bishop Fellay wrote this on 12 January 2012, when he rejected the DP1 that “the [doctrinal]
problem not being resolved, to want to go any further would be to build on an equivocation” and also, “what remains of the legitimate freedom to discuss some points of the council granted in the preliminary Note? It seems to us that they no longer leave us any room for discussion.” Now it seems that everything has been “solved”, and that the Bishop can continue, to use his former words, to “build on equivocation” and opening the way “for discussion”!

Bishop Fellay’s note referring to the Council of Florence, inserted in paragraph no. 6, reveals in him a lack of contact with reality if he hopes to obtain anything from any hypothetical new doctrinal discussions with Rome, even though they demonstrated in 2011 that a doctrinal agreement was impossible. Much more, once the Society return “to the conciliar fold,” the authorities would have no interest in keeping the “debate” going on, at least on the essential points.
pp.57
No. 7 : On the “Validity” and the “Legitimacy” of the New Mass and the New Sacraments
'We declare that we acknowledge the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments when celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.'
This paragraph is taken nearly word for word from Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 Protocol, except for the mention of the new Mass and new sacraments being “legitimately promulgated”!
In this passage from Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration, there is a major concession to those most destructive instruments against Catholic piety—the new rites! Let us recall what Bishop Fellay said on the same crucial question on the new Mass only five months earlier, on 30 November 2011, in the Preliminary to his DP2:
On the subject of the [new] Mass, we recognize that the Holy Ghost can legitimately take part in these rites,
but “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite
definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the
Mystery.” (“A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass” by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani) We recognize the sacramental validity of it, but we see there an evil by its deficiencies that largely explain in themselves the liturgical disaster.
This was orthodox, but the contradiction is flagrant between what Bishop Fellay wrote then and what he later wrote in the DD of 15 April 2012.
What are we to think about the validity and legitimacy of the new Mass and new sacraments?
Archbishop Lefebvre had always granted that the essential conditions for the integrity of the sacraments being satisfied, it is possible that the new Mass and the new sacraments are valid in general, although on a case-by-case basis, there are more and more invalid new rites. But it is another thing to admit that these rites are legitimate, because affirming, like Bishop Fellay, that they are “legitimately promulgated” is tantamount to accepting that these rites are “good”!
Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said on the question about the legitimacy of the new Mass:
We are not saying that the new Mass is heretical, nor that it is invalid, but we refuse to say that it is legitimate, that it is perfectly orthodox. (Communicantes, August 1985)
pp. 58
Since many excellent theological studies have been written demonstrating the serious deficiencies of the new rites, we will not bother repeating them here. It is enough for us to examine this question of the “legitimacy” of the new rites, because recently Bishop Fellay and his defenders have been trying to play with words in claiming that to affirm that these new rites are “legitimately” promulgated is not implying that they are “licit, lawful.”Unless one has fallen into Nominalism and thinks that words do not have precise meanings, we will begin by quoting the definition “legitimacy” given in The Oxford English Dictionary: “Conformity to rule or principle; lawfulness.” Therefore, if legitimacy is the quality of what is in conformity with the law, a thing is also “lawful” when it is in conformity with the law. In other words, the expressions legitimate, lawful and licit are synonyms.
If we move into canonical language, as is the case here, we see that there is no difference in the meanings of “legitimate” and “licit,” because the “liceity” of a sacramental act is based on the “legitimacy” of the liturgical law which promulgates it. Thus, one time admitting, as Bishop Fellay has done, that the new rites have been “legitimately promulgated,” thereby implies that the laws which have “promulgated” them are good, because in Canon Law for a law to be legitimate it must be good! And if their promulgation is “legitimate,” nothing prevents their celebration from being licit and good as well.
In that case, one can truly ask Bishop Fellay: if the “promulgation” of the laws establishing the new rites is legitimate, and thus good, why does he not celebrate the new Mass or dispense the new sacraments?
Actually, on the subject of the liceity of the new rites, Bishop Fellay has been himself trapped because of a major concession he made to Rome—by accepting the new Code of Canon Law! That being the case, he is forced to be “logical” with himself. It would be “illogical” to accept the new Code and then to refuse to recognize as legitimate the promulgation of the new rites which are legitimized in the new code! All the Traditional communities which have rejoined Modernist Rome have passed that way . . . they began by recognizing the “legitimacy” of the promulgation of the new rites, then their superiors did not hesitate to concelebrate the new Mass with the Pope, as Dom Gérard, Bishop Rifan, Fr. Wach, and others have done publicly.
So when will Bishop Fellay concelebrate the new rite with the Pope, if he asks him to do so?

No. 8 : The Acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law.
'Following the criteria spelled out above (III.5), as well as canon 21 of the Code, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by the same Pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline to be granted to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X by a particular law. '
pp. 59
Bishop Fellay, as usual, borrows here almost all of the wording from the Roman DP1, excepting when he added at the beginning, “Following the criteria spelled out above (III.5), as well as canon 21 of the Code.”
Does this addition “neutralize” the text that follows? We think not, because we have already shown that point III.5 is the worst part of the worst paragraph!
Here is what Canon 21 (that Bishop Fellay quotes in his favor) of the new Code (1983) says:
'In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.'

In other words, in cases of doubt on the revocation of a law of the old Code [1917], the new Code [1983] should “relate to” or “harmonize” the two laws Note 18. It is a vain hope to think that Bishop Fellay, in accepting the new Code, will obtain the possibility of keeping certain laws of the old Code.
The first reason is that the new Code says this:
Canon 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated :
1. The Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2. Other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws.
Thus one can clearly see that in §1.1, the old Code is explicitly abrogated, that is, suppressed.
Could Bishop Fellay, thanks to §1.2, obtain several dispensations or exemptions concerning, for example, the minor orders, or the sub-deaconate, or some purely disciplinary laws? Perhaps, but these exemptions do not compensate his acceptance of the many provisions of the new Code that are gravely contrary to the Faith and the traditional practices of the Church (as mentioned by Archbishop Lefebvre).
And more concretely, in case of a conflict between the two laws, the last word will come from conciliar Rome preferring the new law! Is Bishop Fellay dreaming that the Society would be able to continue to use the old and new
Codes “in parallel”? The reality is that the new Code is not a good instrument to guard Tradition but
it has been made precisely to implement the conciliar doctrines. Have those who rejoined Rome
obtained the favor of using the Code of 1917? Never!

Note 18 An “exemption” is the partial revocation of a law, but an “abrogation” is the total revocation
or abolition of a law. Here Bp. Fellay is asking Rome for the former, not the latter.
pp. 60
There again is a new “reversal” for Bishop Fellay: he changes his mind on an important point. Here is what he said previously about the new Code in the Preliminary note to Rome in the DP2 on 30 November 2011: '. . . finding in Canon Law of 1983 the same ambiguities that are in the Council, we express the same reservations and ask for the power to remain with the Canon Law of 1917, with the disciplinary adaptions which go with it. '
And in another letter to Rome dated 12 January 2012, with additional information, Bishop Fellay was again very critical on the subject of the new Code:
'The Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 which, in the measure where it takes up the novelties of the Council, presents the same difficulties” as the conciliar errors and the new Mass.
In these two texts Bishop Fellay maintained at that time the invariably firm position of the Society concerning the new Code since 1983: we keep the old Code of 1917. But, now, with the DD, he has totally changed his mind! It is no longer a question about “ambiguities” or “reservations” concerning the new Code. To adopt Bp. Fellay’s new strategy it only remains for us to ask for “crumbs” from our enemies with some dispensations, but swallowing all the poison of the new Code.
Now we see why, in conscience, we cannot accept the new Code, even with the “restrictions” proposed by Bishop Fellay.
Bishop Fellay is not ignoring the noxiousness of the new Code, because not only has he studied it, but he has seen, as we all have, its harmful effects. The new Code is putting into “legal” language all the conciliar errors. It would be a contradiction to claim that one rejects the Council and at the same time one accepts the “legislation” that puts in place the conciliar errors! In this sense, the new Code is more dangerous that the Council itself. Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said numerous times about the perversity of the new Code:
“So, what are we supposed to think about this? Well, it’s that this [new] canon law is unacceptable.”
(Spiritual Conference given at Ecône, 99B, 14 March 1983)'
'The new code no longer asks a married Protestant/Catholic couple to sign a commitment to baptize the children Catholic. It is a serious violation of the faith, a serious violation of the faith . . . In the new code of canon law, there are two supreme powers of the Church: there is the power of the Pope who has the supreme power and then the pope with the bishops . . . That has never been seen in the Church . . . It is thus to limit the power of the pope. So, the explanatory note of the Council, practically, has no effect under the new canon law.” (Spiritual Conference given at Écône, 100A, 20 may 1983)
“The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: ‘The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose this
pp. 61
doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology, in canonical language.’ . . . It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic faith will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.” (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, no. 24, March 1983)'
“However, when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new concept of the Church . . . This is the definition of the Church (Canon 204): ‘The faithful are those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason, having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world’ . . . There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy? . . . It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. . . This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very grave . . . You know that the new Code of Canon Law [Canon 844] permits a priest to give Communion to a protestant. It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are protestants who remain protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith.” (Conference at Turin, 24 March 1984)
“We find this doctrine already suggested in the Council docuмent Lumen Gentium, according to which the College of Bishops, together with the pope, exercises supreme power in the Church in habitual and constant manner.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, 1985, ch. 12)
“Our cry of alarm was rendered even more urgent by the errors in the new Code of Canon Law, not to say its heresies . . .” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, 1985, ch. 21)
Therefore, by accepting the new Code of Canon Law, Bishop Fellay implicitly accepts all its errors and deviations concerning:
– a Protestant concept of the Church defined as “the People of God”;
– two supreme universal powers in the Church;
– collegiality at all levels;
– a laicization of the Church;
– ecuмenical practices, in particular “Eucharistic hospitality”;
– new causes for nullity of marriages;
– new regulations in contracting marriages;
– easy granting of annulments in Marriage Tribunals;
–suppression of the Major Order of Sub-Deaconate, the minor orders and tonsure;
– new “canonizations”;
– relaxing of disciplinary laws;
– etc., etc.
Thus, Bishop Fellay’s acceptance of submitting to the new Code of Canon Law will be the greatest practical obstacle for the Society if it wants to continue to fulfill it function of preserving Tradition and fighting against the conciliar errors.

CONCLUSION OF PART TWO
pp. 62
After having analyzed the contents of the Doctrinal Declaration, we are dumbfounded to
observe that Bishop Fellay, through this docuмent, officially accepts all that we have always been fighting against: the Council, the new Mass and the new Code of Canon Law. Here is the summary of the different points upon which he has yielded:
In paragraph I, he promises fidelity to “the conciliar church,” and to the pope, head of this same “church.”
In paragraph II, he accepts submission to the teachings of the conciliar and post-conciliar “magisterium,” according to the doctrine of no. 25 of Lumen gentium.
In paragraph III, he accepts all of the major points of controversy:
– the collegial authority of the pope and the bishops;
– the authority of the “magisterium” and the “conciliar church”;
– the “progress” of Tradition according to the neo-modernists;
– the criteria for interpreting between Tradition and the texts of the Second Vatican Council in general, i.e. the “hermeneutic of continuity”;
– the “hermeneutic of continuity” as criteria for interpreting between Tradition and the texts of the Council on ecuмenism and religious liberty;
– postponing the doctrinal discussions until later;
– accepting the “validity” and the “legitimacy” of the new Mass and the new sacraments; and
– Acceptation of the new Code of Canon Law (1983).
Bp. Fellay gave up on every point Rome was expecting from him! Anything goes! We can truly see that Bishop Fellay has done his best to satisfy the demands of Cardinal Levada, who in his letter of 16 March 2012 invited him to “consider the serious consequences of the position you have taken, if you decide to make it definitive” and to “reconsider your position.” Bishop Fellay thus confirms his “new position with respect to the official Church” as he wrote in Cor Unum no. 101 of March 2012.
Through the DD we see a serious doctrinal compromise and all the bastions of Tradition are falling . . . This is betrayal by the one who, in the first place, was supposed to defend it. It is no surprise that such a docuмent has caused and still continues to cause such strong reactions among those who do not want to compromise with modernist Rome.
We will see in PART THREE what have been the immediate and long-term consequences caused by the Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, (2012).
Then, before concluding, we will answer the objections of those who defend the Declaration and the actions of Bishop Fellay.
[PART THREE PENDING]
[??? Ed. T.d.]

[http://users.tpg.com.au/resitere//2012-04-15_Doctrinal_Declaration_of_Bishop_Fellay-Proof_of_Treason.pdf ] Link not working
Continuation pp. 25
pp. 25
If we believe him, this description leads one to think mistakenly that the Conciliar Church is
dying, is disintegrating! He even claims that “the movement [of restoration] cannot be stopped.”
And, to crown his illusions, he goes as far as to claim that “Divine Providence is expressing through the
reality of the events,” (sic) that is, that he considers that Providence is behind all these small events, not
at all convincing, that Rome is converting! As usual, he invokes a kind of “supernaturalism,” which
manifests only his own illusions!
Thus he comes to his conclusion:
If this is true, and I am convinced of it, this requires that we take up a new position with
respect to the official Church. It is in this context that we must ask ourselves the question about the
recognition of the Society by the official Church. Our new friends in Rome declare that the impact of such a
recognition would be extremely powerful on the whole Church, as a confirmation of the importance of
Tradition for the Church.
Then, to calm down the ranks of those opposing an agreement, he reassuringly states:
However, such a concrete realization requires two absolutely necessary points in order to assure our
survival: The first is that no concessions affecting the faith and what follows from it (liturgy, sacraments,
morality, discipline) may be demanded of the Society. The second is that a real liberty and autonomy of action should be granted to the Society, and that these freedoms should allow it to live and to develop in concrete circuмstances . . . The concrete circuмstances will show when the time has arrived to “take the step” towards the official Church. Today, despite the Roman overture of 14 September, and because of the conditions that have been set, this still seems impossible.
But it is obvious that he is rather optimistic:
'When the good Lord wills it, that time will come. But we cannot rule out the possibility that a swift
resolution will be reached, because the Pope seems to be throwing all his weight into this matter.'
Note that when Bishop Fellay speaks of having “a new position in relation to the official Church,” what
does he want to say if not that he is ready to change the position of the Society? He is satisfied with asking for only two conditions to assure our “survival,” no more: (1) no doctrinal concessions on our part, and (2) the freedom to live and grow. One wonders what happened to our criticism of the Conciliar errors?
We will see further on that even these two conditions could not be fulfilled, because Bishop
Fellay, in his Doctrinal Declaration, will make major doctrinal concessions, and the “freedom of action” that he dreamed of would be seriously compromised by his acceptance of the new Code.
Next, he repeats that the “favorable conditions” are given in order to respond favorably to Rome:
'if there was a change in the situation of the Church with respect to Tradition, then that might necessitate a corresponding modification of the conclusion, [look for an agreement] without any change whatsoever in
pp. 26
our principles!. . . Now there is no doubt that since 2006 we have witnessed a development in the Church, an important and extremely interesting development, although it is not very visible'.
The phrase “if there was a change,” is ambiguous . . . because it could signify either that this change
is still awaited, or that it has already happened.
But after having seen the enumeration by Bishop Fellay of the “positive changes” that have
taken place, one cannot help but conclude that, for him, the “change” awaited from Rome has
already happened!
What is this “change”? For Bishop Fellay, it is only a change in Rome’s attitude towards us, and
not a change of Rome itself ! Certainly, present-day Rome can have a change of “attitude” towards the Society, but this change is purely political and diplomatic, not doctrinal, and their goal is still to lead us to accept the conciliar reforms.
Bishop Fellay cannot mention any major doctrinal change in Rome because no one would
believe him! Here lies the fundamental difference between Bishop Fellay and the 2006 General
Chapter: which kind of change we have to expect from Rome before working on a practical
accord.: a change of attitude towards us, or a doctrinal change of Rome?
So, it is clear that for Bishop Fellay the doctrinal change expected from Rome cannot be
expected now and must be set aside; maybe resolved later… but certainly only after a practical
agreement.
b. The dilemma of making the good choice.
Bishop Fellay now finds himself facing the dilemma of having to choose between, on one side, to maintain his refusal of Rome’s Preamble, and on the other side, the option of continuing the negotiations, and presenting a new doctrinal docuмent to Rome, but Cardinal Levada required from him to keep the substance of the ideas contained in the Roman Preamble of 14 September 2011.
To break off the negotiations at this point would require from Bishop Fellay nothing less than a heroic act, perhaps difficult to do, but still possible. Note 5
One would think that if Bishop Fellay were asking us to pray for protection from a “grave danger,” it was because he was ready to refuse the Roman Doctrinal Preamble and consequentially, and he judged that the Society might be exposing itself to possible sanctions. At least that is the impression one would have at that moment.
So what was Bishop Fellay to do?
He has to (sic) (two) options:

Note 5 We remember that at this crucial moment, Bishop Fellay asked the Society to pray in order to
be protected from “a grave danger.”
pp. 27
–If he confirmed his refusal of the Roman Doctrinal Preamble, he could be confronted with
possible “sanctions” from modernist Rome, as Cardinal Levada had threatened;
–If he “revised his copy,” by presenting a new, sufficiently ambiguous docuмent, which
might please Rome and his own people at the same time, then the canonical recognition would
only be a one-step away.
But one thing was sure, Bishop Fellay’s ultimate decision would depend on his most profound
motivations.
(a) The option to reject.
If he chooses the first option, that of rejecting the Preamble presented by Rome, it would be
because he considered any doctrinal concession to be impossible. After all, in acting this way he would only confirm the serious criticisms that he had expressed against Rome’s Preamble in his second letter of 12 January 2012, where he had exposed, point by point, the serious doctrinal problems of this docuмent. To act otherwise would be to contradict himself! Thus, he would not make any doctrinal compromise and he would save the unity of the Society and of Tradition.
Truly, this refusal would expose the Society to new “excommunications” and being declared
“schismatic” . . . But Bishop Fellay should not worry about new “condemnations” by modernist Rome, since they would only be apparent, because if invalidity.
Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre thought about the “sanctions” coming from modernist
Rome, as he expressed in his press conference the evening before the episcopal consecrations in
1988:
'The Osservatore Romano will publish the excommunication, evidently a declaration of “schism.”
What does it all mean?
Excommunication by whom? By modernist Rome, by a Rome that most certainly no longer has the
Catholic faith. (…)
So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous
popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned, and who would be publicly condemned. That leaves us indifferent. Evidently that has no value. A declaration of schism; schism with what, with the Pope who is the successor of Peter? No, schism with the modernist Pope, yes, schism with the ideas that the Pope spreads, above all, the Revolutionary ideas, the modern ideas, yes. We are in schism with them. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)'
In 2012 Rome continued to be occupied by modernists and liberals as in 1988, and Bishop Fellay wanted us “to believe the unbelievable,” namely that the situation has changed for the good!
Actually, we will see later that it is not Rome who has changed, but that it is Bishop Fellay, himself,
who has changed.
Because the stakes are truly there: what Rome promised with these negotiations, at the end of
the practical agreement is the “carrot”, but the “stick” is now the threat of new sanctions if the
Society does not accept their Doctrinal Preamble.
pp. 28
And so, if Bishop Fellay continues in the same old doctrinal position, that is, Archbishop
Lefebvre’s position which used to be at least somewhat his own position (at least in the conclusions)
in January 2012, the Society would be assured of continuing to defend Tradition and fight against
the conciliar errors with real freedom.
(b) The option to continue.
If Bishop Fellay goes back to the canonical recognition process, by the same token, he accepts
setting himself up as a petitioner: he would be appealing for a favor from Rome. Thus, he would be
in an inferior position in relation to his interlocutors, and, consequently, sooner or later he would
have to succuмb to the demands of modernist Rome, and not his own! Note 6
This second option, of continuing, implies that the Superior General necessarily must present a
new doctrinal docuмent to Rome.
Indeed, if he wanted to obtain the long desired canonical regularization at any price, he must
proceed as Cardinal Levada asked him, that is, to accept the substance of the Roman Preamble dated
14 September 2011, a docuмent he had already rejected!
Since he had officially declared that this 2011 docuмent from Rome was unacceptable, for the
time being, he could no longer honestly and openly take it back.
Therefore the only solution that would please Rome would be to rewrite the same thing, but in a
disguised and ambiguous manner, so that everyone, i.e. Rome and the members of the Society,
would be satisfied. In other words, he would have to rewrite a new doctrinal declaration but
containing the erroneous principles of the 14 September 2011 Preamble which would be
reformulated in a way that would make it appear to be more traditional.
Did not Bishop Fellay know that modernist Rome would demand some doctrinal concessions
from him, if he expected a canonical recognition from them? It is difficult to believe that Bishop
Fellay did not foresee this.
Especially since there was not a doctrinal agreement at the end of the theological discussions
with Rome. Truly for Rome these discussions had no other end but “to clarify the respective
positions and their motivations,” (Cf. Preliminary Note) and nothing more.
Actually Rome waited for the end of the doctrinal discussions to introduce the doctrinal
demands. Sooner or later, it was inevitable that the Roman authorities would ask for doctrinal
concessions from the Society. Note 7

Note 6
If we compare Bishop Fellay’s situation in 2012 to that of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, we
can see that Archbishop Lefebvre was in a superior position during his negotiations with Rome
because of his threat to consecrate a bishop, which made the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger move.
Note 7
Let us remark that it has been always easy for Rome to grant a canonical recognition of the
Society, (which would not cost them much…) provided that the Society would accept the Council
and its reforms, which are not negotiable.
pp. 29
But, has also Bishop Fellay, like Rome, non-negotiable doctrinal points? What is more important
for him: a canonical recognition or the fidelity to doctrine?
(c) The decision is made: let’s continue!
We know how the final decision was taken by Bishop Fellay:
– he put aside his Doctrinal Preamble (DP2) dated 31 November 2011;
– he presented his Doctrinal Declaration (DD) dated 15 April 2012 to Rome, which was
only a slightly modified and “revised edition” of the Roman Preamble of 14 September
2011! Note 8
We must keep in mind that Rome’s first public reaction to Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration
was rather favorable.
Indeed, Fr. Lombardi, the head of the Vatican Press Office, commented the following on Radio
Vatican on April 18 2012:
According to witnesses who have read it, this response is very different from the preceding one . . . You
could say that they took a step forward, that is to say that the new response is very encouraging.
Note that Fr. Lombardi had certainly seen Bp. Fellay’s Declaration, and this means his testimony
has an official character, and that he mentions three times his positive opinion about the docuмent.
Thus, two elements officially motivated Bishop Fellay’s decision to give a favorable response to
Rome in presenting his Doctrinal Declaration date 15 April 2012:
– One “positive” element: Bishop Fellay affirms (mistakenly) that there is “a change in the
situation of the Church regarding Tradition”. This is actually the first argument he uses to justify the
request for a canonical recognition by Rome and the continuation of the discussions to this effect.
Basically: if Rome has “changed,” we too must change! The Society must put into practice the “new
position towards the official Church.”
– A “negative” element: the fear of possible sanctions by Rome. This is an example of a typical
manipulation. Bishop Fellay dramatizes the situation and exaggerates the danger of sanctions from
Rome to justify his choice. (We will return to this later)
We must question the seriousness of these official reasons as advanced by Bp. Fellay to ge ahead
with an agreement with Rome.
The so-called “improvement” of the situation in Rome is clearly nonexistent.

Note 8 We will see that Bishop Fellay, in this new docuмent, made serious concessions concerning the
Catholic faith. We will see that this text, initially accepted by Rome, was the basis to prepare the
signature of the agreement with Bishop Fellay on 13 June 2012. The agreement, however, was not
signed at the last minute for some reasons we will analyse later on.
pp. 30
As for the fear of sanctions from Rome: since 1988 they have had no effect on the Society. Are
we to fear for sanctions we did not care about?
Therefore, Menzingen’s two reasons to compromise are false.
One thing is sure: Bishop Fellay wants, at any price, to make a practical agreement with Rome
and he is trying to justify it any way he can, tactlessly. For him, despite his denials, it is clear that
from now on, the practical agreement comes before the defense of the faith. This explains why he
will make serious doctrinal concessions in his 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
As a consequence, the Society will pay dearly for the decision taken by Bishop Fellay to present
his Doctrinal Declaration.
II. The 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (DD) of Bishop Fellay
A. Analysis of the Declaration in general.
Less than a month after receiving the threatening letter from Cardinal Levada, Bishop Fellay, on
15 April 2012, presented his Doctrinal Declaration (DD) to Rome. Note 9
It is very important to notice that this new docuмent was no longer, as it was the Doctrinal
Preamble of 30 November 2011 (DP2), a docuмent entirely conceived by Bishop Fellay and
replacing the Roman Preamble. Bishop Fellay, in front of Rome’s refusal of his DP2, just decided to take back the Roman Doctrinal Preamble (DP1), modifying it slightly.
Nevertheless, Bishop Fellay remains the true author of the 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration,
even if for its composition he was largely inspired by the unacceptable 2011 Roman Preamble.
He began by giving it a new name: “Doctrinal Declaration.” But, make no mistake: it
represents about 95% of the Cardinal Levada’s Preamble dated 14 September 2011! Note 10
Besides, it should be noted that, contrary to Bishop Fellay’s recent explanations seeking to
minimize the impact of his Declaration, the choice of the title “Declaration” gives more importance

Note 9
Let us remark that this Declaration was accompanied by no additional explanations. One
would suppose that it was because the DD appeared to its author to be sufficiently “clear” and that
it needed no any clarification . . . It is dated 15 April, but it was sent to Rome on April 17th
.
Note10 Bishop Fellay said in his introductory note to this docuмent in Cor Unum no. 104, that the
choice of the “title ‘Doctrinal Declaration’ is borrowed from Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, since we did not want to take back the title ‘Doctrinal Preamble,’ which contents we had rejected in our response dated January 12.”
Frankly, these two declarations have very little in common . . . because their content is totally
different! (Cf. responses to objections).
pp. 31
and a more definitive character to the docuмent, unlike the term “Preamble,” which implies the
opening to other texts which will come afterward.
1. Bishop Fellay’s Introductory Note in Cor Unum No. 104.
The magazine Cor Unum (no. 104, March 2013) published an introductory note by Bishop Fellay
in which he tries to explain to the members of the Society the “context” in which he wrote the 15
April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
He began by recalling the refusal by Cardinal Levada (a letter of 16 March 2012) of his Doctrinal
Preamble (DP2) presented on 30 November 2011, as a replacement for the Roman Doctrinal
Preamble (DP1) of 14 September 2011.
It is clear that for Cardinal Levada, the Society’s rejection of the Doctrinal Preamble (approved
by Benedict XVI), was “tantamount to a rupture in the communion with the Roman Pontiff, which would lead to canonical sanctions incurred for schism.”
Why did Bishop Fellay not refute the Cardinal’s fallacious argument? Did he feel “guilty” of
rejecting Rome’s Preamble?
Nevertheless it’s easy to answer the Cardinal’s argument. If the Society rejected the Roman
Preamble, it is because of serious doctrinal reasons. Bishop Fellay could not go back and accept it
now without contradicting himself and making a serious mistake, no matter the risk of the threats
from Rome! To be “in communion” with Benedict XVI’s Preamble, would be tantamount to not
being in communion with all the Popes before Vatican II, nor with the Catholic Church.
Then, in the same Cor Unum text, Bishop Fellay attemps to appear “firm” when he states that it
was “the principle of faith” which guided his relations with Rome. He added, “we have always ruled out
weighing the pros and cons of this principle in view of obtaining . . . a canonical recognition” and that “no practical agreement would ever be accepted unless it met the sine qua non conditions we have often expressed, whether in several positions taken or in the second response to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 12, 2011).”
It is easy for him to affirm that now . . . but to believe what Bishop Fellay says here, we must
judge him by his actions, and not by his words. Maybe the conditions sine qua non have been stated
on several occasions, but Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration, as we can see, will ignore these
conditions.
And what did he do about the sine qua non condition stated by the 2006 General Chapter which demanded to avoid any “merely practical impossible agreement”? The 2006 Chapter also stated, by quoting Archbishop Lefebvre, that “the day when Tradition will regain all its rights [to Rome], ‘the reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will find again a new youth.’ [Abp. Lefebvre]”
As we have seen, Bishop Fellay discarded this important condition in a stroke of his pen by
labeling it “impractical.”
pp. 32
According to him, Cardinal Levada accused the Society of rejecting “all the acts of the Magisterium
since 1962,” an accusation which Bishop Fellay considers to be “false.” (sic) Note 11
Further on, Bp. Fellay speaks about his “line of demarcation [ligne de crête]” through which, he says,
he wants to avoid the extreme positions of compromise with Rome, and sedevacantism, because one
does not want to be “either heretic or schismatic.”
Then he wanted to minimize the impact of his Declaration by stating that “even if the docuмent
given in April [2012] had been accepted [by Rome], that alone would not have been sufficient to arrive at a canonical regularization . . . This context shows that the Doctrinal Declaration did not claim to be the full expression of our thinking about the Council and the current Magisterium,” and that by the Declaration he only wanted to complete the doctrinal meetings of 2010-2011 on a particular point: “the accusation of schism.”
We have already seen what Archbishop Lefebvre thought of such supposed accusations of
“schism” brought against us by modernist Rome, but one could say that Bishop Fellay is truly
affected by this false accusation, because he seems to take it seriously . . . Does he really believe what
is only “apparent” schism?
Later he explains that these “examples of our submission to the magisterial authority in itself” do not exclude his “opposition to many of the acts being performed by it currently.” We will see later, in the analysis of the Declaration, that Bishop Fellay’s unrealistic explanation does not hold up.
He puts himself on the defensive against some attacks in the Society, when he states that “our
thought was not understood in this sense by some eminent members of the Society, who saw in it an ambiguity, or else an alignment with the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity.”
If anyone takes these words literally, he must believe that these “eminent members” in the Society are ignorant regarding theological matters . . . The fact is that never before in the Society have we seen so many priests and faithful so seriously opposed to the Superior General because of his
wrongdoings. Is this not a proof that behind their reaction is more than a simple misunderstanding,
but a real doctrinal problem with the Superior General?
The Superior General of the Society is trying to convince the priests that the rejection by Rome
of this Declaration, in 13 June 2012, was the proof that his docuмent was not “an alignment with the
thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity.” But he “forgot” to mention that his Declaration was originally
approved by Rome, from April 2012 to the beginning of June 2012, and that the practical agreement
was about to be signed on 13 June 2012, when at the last-minute, some events changed the Pope’s
mind. (We will treat further on this “rejection” from Rome)
Bishop Fellay then tried to deflect attention by speaking of the rearrangements, modifications
and additions in the new Roman Declaration presented to him on 13 June 2012, while what matters

Note 11 If truth be told, it is difficult to find a single docuмent of the conciliar or post-conciliar
“magisterium” which is totally orthodox and on which one would not have some reservations . . .
Humanae vitae is perhaps the only one! One would like to know what Bishop Fellay thinks of this
subject.
pp. 33
is the internal analysis of his own Declaration, that of 15 April 2012, in order to see if it
corresponded or not to the constant position of the Society.
(We will respond to the falsity of this statement at the end of PART TWO)
Finally Bishop Fellay concluded by “exclusively” revealing that he informed Bishop Di Noia, on 28 August 2012, that he “was withdrawing” his proposal of April 2012, “which could no longer serve as a
basis to work in the future.”
What is the point to say it now when, according to him, the Declaration has been “rejected” by Rome?
And independently of the fact that it was rejected as a basis to work, Bishop Fellay must answer
for its contents. He must explain to everyone how he could present such a heterodox docuмent as
representing the doctrinal position of the Society!
He concludes his Cor Unum introductory Note by saying that only the following docuмents
represent the Society’s position:
– the two letters sent to Rome on 30 November 2011, and 12 January 2012;
– the declaration of the General Chapter dated 14 July 2012;
– the Six Conditions, voted by the 2012 General Chapter, required before any canonical recognition by Rome.
(We will analyze this statement by Bishop Fellay later.)
2. The Ambiguity of the Doctrinal Declaration
One has the right to ask two questions concerning Bishop Fellay’s decision to present the
Doctrinal Declaration:
A.) Why did bishop Fellay abandon the 30 November 2011 Doctrinal Preamble (DP2) which
was a little shaky, but correct in its conclusions, and replace it with the 15 April 2012 Doctrinal
Declaration (DD) which was much worse and full of ambiguities?
B.) Could Cardinal Levada’s Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) be modified to the point of making it
“acceptable” in Bishop Fellay’s 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration?
From the answers to these two questions and the detailed analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration
will come the evidence of a serious betrayal of our doctrinal positions and evidence of our duty to
condemn the modernist errors.
a.) To respond to the first question, we cannot but notice that Bishop Fellay’s abandonment of
his 30 November 2011 Preamble (PD2) shows a serious concession in the face of Tradition’s
enemies. The PD2, even though containing two omissions and an inacceptable reference to Lumen
Gentium, nevertheless, was mostly based on traditional docuмents. In it Bp. Fellay wanted to take the
pp. 34
initiative, to change the strategy, and to pass from being the accused one, to be the accuser of the
innovators in Rome.
But then, with his DD, Bp. Fellay completely changed his position: he preferred to follow
another path, the path of compromise and concession. He simply returned to the Roman Preamble of September 2011 proposed by Card. Levada and will try to modify it.
This is how Bishop Fellay explains his strategy—so full of ambiguity and equivocation, more
worthy of a politician than a man of the Church—when he speaks of his Doctrinal Declaration:
'Concerning the reply I sent to Rome just after Quisimodo Sunday on 17 April [2012] . . . there are
(in this docuмent) expressions or declarations which are so very much on the line of demarcation [Fr.: la ligne de crête] that if you are ill-disposed or are wearing dark- or rose-colored glasses, you will see it as this or that. . . . But, if one wants to read it the wrong way [Fr.: de travers], Note 12,  one will succeed in understanding it the wrong way. (Nouvelles de Chrétienté, no. 135)'
We are very far from the clear language of Our Lord, of Catholicism and of our Founder!
In other words, if Bishop Fellay affirms that his whole Declaration can be understood “the wrong
way,” with “dark glasses,” it is because his docuмent is considered ambiguous. And he confirms this
ambiguity when he says that, “if one wants to read it the wrong way, one will succeed in understanding it the wrong way.”
Does not Scripture tell us: “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.” (Matt. 5:37) and also, “Os bilingue detesto – I hate . . . a mouth with a double tongue.” (Prov. 8:13)?
God hates double speak, ambiguity, double meaning. Because ambiguity is precisely that: it is an
expression that has two interpretations, one good and one evil. An ambiguous text in thus
unacceptable, because one does not have the right to favor error by allowing for a double
interpretation. And what is worse, this ambiguity here is intentional, by the will of its author.
This ambiguity is all the more condemnable when it is a question about Catholic doctrine, which
is always uncompromising. How can one want ambiguity when it is a question of matters pertaining
to the Faith and the salvation of souls? Because these matters imply serious consequences, one
cannot permit oneself to offer a text full of double meanings.
This is why the Church gravely condemns not only openly erroneous expressions, such as
heresies, but also ambiguous expressions , like “close to heresy,” “favoring heresy”, or “smelling
heresy,” such as those condemning the Synod of Pistoia (1786).
Can we ever imagine the docuмents of the Traditional Magisterium being filled with
ambiguities? Note 13

Note 12 The French word “de travers” could be translated into English: the wrong way, crooked, askew,
sideways. Is it not the precise definition of ambiguity: to favor a wrong interpretation?
Note 13 The same principle can be applied to the New Mass: its authors designed it precisely to be
ambiguous, so that it could have the meaning of a Protestant meal. On the other hand, this would be unimaginable with the traditional Mass which does not contain this ambiguity and which can have only a Catholic meaning. It is true as well about certain Vatican II docuмents, which are evil and unacceptable because of their ambiguity.
pp. 35
The ambiguity is all the more condemnable when there is a serious obligation to make a
profession of our faith, as it is precisely the case here with Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration.”
Did he not imply so in “declaring” our faith and not hiding it or favoring error?
b.) To respond to the second question, it is evident that Cardinal Levada’s 14 September 2011 Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) cannot to be modified to the point of making it “acceptable.” Note 14
The primary reason that makes us think that the Roman Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) could not be
modified is that Bishop Fellay himself thinks so!
If this Preamble were “changeable,” why did not the Society do it on 30 November 2011 or in
January 2012 when they answered Rome?
Did not Bishop Fellay reject this Preamble in his letter dated 30 November 2011?
He refuted it POINT BY POINT in his letter of 12 January 2012, in which he said that his acceptance would have represented a “harmful ambiguity and sowed confusion” because it would “impose upon us all the novelties about which we had pointed out our difficulties, reluctance, and opposition and to which our objections still remain.”
Unless one disregards the principle of non-contradiction, by which a statement and its contrary cannot be true at the same time, Bishop Fellay contradicts himself and loses his credibility if he accepts most of a docuмent which he himself has refuted, point by point, using very strong arguments!
Which “Bishop Fellay” should we believe? The one of November 2011 and January 2012 with
his DP1, or the one of April 2012 with his DD?
Someone may object that Bishop Fellay has removed the harmful elements in Rome’s Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) and so he has transformed it in his Doctrinal Declaration, which would be acceptable to Rome and the Society at the same time. We will respond to that charge later in detail by showing, point by point, that Bishop Fellay has
not substantially modified the Roman Preamble in his Declaration; he only made some minor
changes.

Note 14 This error is similar to the one concerning the Second Vatican Council docuмents, of which
some say that it would be enough to “correct” them so as to make them “acceptable.” Common
sense shows us that most of the conciliar docuмents are so corrupt that one cannot correct them
and make them “good.” They must simply be rejected.
pp. 36
Our second reason for thinking that the Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) was not amendable is that it
was written by our enemies in Rome. Its neo-Modernist authors clearly wanted to lead the Society,
through ambiguity and cunning, to accept the conciliar reforms via the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
Its language is only more “refined” than in other docuмents presented to the Society in the past
in order to better seduce, but all the neo-modernist poison is really there.
It is difficult to believe that Bishop Fellay did not see the poison lurking in the Roman Preamble, which he used later to construct his DD. Not only is he intelligent, but if we take into account his theological formation at Ecône and his experience acquired studying the modern errors, he could
not ignore this problem.
So, Bishop Fellay’s unforgivable fault is that he thinks he could “transform” the Roman
Preamble into his own Declaration, without changing the “substance” of the former, as Cardinal
Levada asked him!
The a posteriori proof that this Declaration was not good is that it created a reaction of
opposition never before seen in the Traditional world, which was not the case with his Doctrinal
Preamble of 30 November 2011 (DP2)! If Bp. Fellay claims that the “tree,” viz. his DD, was good,
why did it produce such violent “fruits” of opposition in his own ranks?
Bishop Fellay and his advisors had difficulty “taking the temperature” of this internal opposition
to his Doctrinal Declaration, because they never understood that this reaction within Tradition
came, not from “bias,” but from the refusal of many to adhere to a text which “smelled”
Modernism. Menzingen refused to recognize that its contents were unacceptable in conscience to
many.
And still today, despite several “strategic” steps back, Bishop Fellay persists in saying that there
is nothing wrong with the contents of his Declaration, but he affirms that he decided to “withdraw”
it, but not to “retract” it, and only because of the negative reaction it received in the Traditional
world.
3. Bishop Fellay’s Reasons Advanced to Justify This Declaration
Ignoring what is in someone’s conscience, we cannot know with certainty what were Bishop
Fellay’s internal motivations at the time he wrote his unacceptable Doctrinal Declaration. But we
can study the official reasons he gave in explanation to justify it. We can also find some clarification
through the public actions of the Superior General of the Society.
In the explanatory note presenting his Doctrinal Declaration in Cor Unum no. 104, Bishop Fellay
advanced two reasons to justify his decision to replace the DP2 of 30 November 2011 with a totally
ambiguous and equivocal Declaration in order to please Rome:
– the fear of possible sanctions from Rome, and
– the desire to join the official Church.
a.) The fear of possible sanctions from Rome.
pp. 37
We have already spoken of the threat of possible “sanctions” coming from Rome that Cardinal
Levada spoke of in his letter dated 16 March 2012 if the Society does not go back to the 14
September 2012 Roman Preamble.
If we judge by the reaction of Bp. Fellay to this threat, we cannot help to see that this
intimidation by modernist Rome worked! Fear, especially when is “imminent,” often causes men to
yield… Note 15
Why were Bishop Fellay and his assistants so afraid when faced with these possible “sanctions”
from Rome? Maybe it is due to the fact that since the lifting of the "excommunications" in 2009, Bishop
Fellay started to feel more in the “legality” of the Church, and became “terrified” at the prospect of
finding himself once again “condemned” by Rome. Bishop Fellay wanted so much to be recognized
by the official Church that he could not stand his “reconciliation” being jeopardized by new
sanctions. Unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, who was indifferent to the “excommunication” by Rome in 1988,
Bp. Fellay gives too much importance to being “condemned” by Rome in 2012.
If his inveterate “legalism” leads Bp. Fellay to feel “guilty” about finding himself on the borders
of the official Church, all the more he wanted to avoid being officially “condemned” once again by
the same Church!
Did he consider that the possible new “sanctions” were valid if he refuses to go back to the
Roman Preamble? He must believe so, judging by his statements taken from the introductory Note
of his Doctrinal Declaration in Cor Unum no. 104:
'Cardinal Levada adds that our rejection of the Doctrinal Preamble approved by Benedict XVI is equivalent to a breach of communion with the Roman Pontiff, which entails the canonical sanctions incurred by schism . . . It [the DD] was not a substitute for our doctrinal position as set forth during the two years of doctrinal discussions; it only intended to add to them on a particular point: the accusation of schism.'
In any case, his right hand man, Fr. Pfluger is more explicit on this sentiment of the “culpability”
of the Society because of its lack of recognition by the conciliar Church.
'For our part, we suffer also from a defect: the fact of our canonical irregularity. It is not only the status of
the post-conciliar Church which is imperfect, it is also ours. . . There is no denying the obligation to take an active part in overcoming the crisis. And this combat begins with us, by desiring to overcome our abnormal canonical status. (DICI no. 263: 16 October 2012, Interview with Kirchliche Umschau)'
These feelings of culpability are far from the excellent analysis made by Fr. Regis de Cacqueray
(District Superior of France) on the “threats” by Rome:

Note15 Can we excuse Bishop Fellay for having acted in such a way, giving way his convictions for
fear of sanctions? Fear does not always excuse moral responsibility, especially when it is a question about a public profession of faith, as was the case here, otherwise, there would never be martyrs!
pp. 38
'Consequently, one understand that this interminable comedy [of Rome] will finish by leaving us indifferent and by discrediting in our eyes those who use with so much ease the carrot and the stick. . . to be excommunicated, then “un-excommunicated,” to be threatened again with being excommunicated, one finishes by hardly being impressed by these dramatic turns of events and all these flip-flops.
We have so many reasons to consider these unjust punishments as being null and void! They have been
discredited in our eyes. First, we look to the memory of 1988. It is the excommunication that rewarded the singular service made by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the Holy Church in providing it with four excellent Catholic bishops, thanks to whom the transmission of the Catholic priesthood is being strengthened. On that occasion we stated how, through the mystery of iniquity, the best servants of the Church find themselves being mistreated. (Fideliter, no. 208, July-August 2012)'
Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said on June 29, 1976 in Ecône about the conciliar Church:
'The Church that affirms such errors (liberty of conscience, etc.) is at once schismatic and heretical. This
Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent the Pope, bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.'
It is sad to state that Bishop Fellay, instead of choosing the intransigence of the faith and the
eventuality of apparent but void “condemnations,” he prefers to search for a visible “legality” and
finishes by giving way to fear. And what is more serious is that in responding “favorably” to Rome,
as we are going to see, he gives up on fundamental questions of doctrine.
All this betrays in him a lack of conviction in our doctrinal positions, because he accepts “under
condition” in his Doctrinal Declaration, the three pillars of the “conciliar Church”: the Second
Vatican Council, the new Mass, and the new Code of Canon Law!
b.) A false notion about the nature of the Church.
If Bishop Fellay agrees to favorably answer Rome with his Doctrinal Declaration it is because
there is a “doctrinal” reason behind this decision: for him, the conciliar church is the Catholic
Church—it is the same Mystical Body of Christ!
This is an extremely vast subject which would merit a longer refutation, but it will suffice here to
briefly present this false reasoning and then refute it.
The problem is that Bishop Fellay identifies the churchmen, the palaces, the church buildings,
the external ceremonials of the “conciliar church” with the Catholic Church . . . He often calls “the
conciliar church” (an expression he no longer uses) the “concrete” Church, the “real” Church.
These expressions of Bishop Fellay are not theological at all, and what is more, signify nothing,
because we could also say that all false churches are “concrete” or “real”! Note16
The expression “conciliar church,” conceived by Cardinal Benelli in a letter to Archbishop
Lefebvre on 25 June 1976, betrays the modernist and freemasonic project of creating a truly “new
church” which is not the Catholic Church.
Has Bishop Fellay forgotten what are the visible theological marks of the Church which identify
the Catholic Church and not the purely external ceremonies? Bishop Fellay explicitly affirmed it in a
conference at the St. Curé d’Ars Seminary in Flavigny, France, on 16 February 2009,

Note 16 These expressions of Bp. Fellay about the Church are not at all theological, and besides they mean nothing, because we could also affirm that the false “churches” are “concrete” or “real”…!
pp. 39
'The identification between the official Church and the modernist Church is an error because we are speaking of a concrete reality.'
Archbishop Lefebvre had quite a different position at Ecône during a conference given to
priests on 9 September 1988:
'The visible church is recognized by the marks that have always been given to visibility: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. I ask: Where are the true marks of the Church? Are they more evident in the
official Church (this is not the visible Church, it is the official Church) or in us, in what we represent, what
we are? Clearly we are the ones who preserve the unity of the Faith, which has disappeared from the official Church. These signs can no longer be found in the others . . . It is not us who leave the Church, but the modernists. To say “to leave the visible Church,” is wrong in identifying the official Church with the visible Church. We belong to the visible Church, to the society of the faithful under the authority of the Pope, because we do not reject the authority of the Pope, but rather what he does . . . Therefore, is it necessary to leave the official Church? To some extent, yes, obviously. It is we who are the visible Church . . . It is the others who are no longer a part of it. (Interview in Le Choc, no. 6, Paris, France, 1989)'
And so, if we follow the “logic” of Bishop Fellay, if the “conciliar church” and the Catholic
Church are “identical,” we must look for the “reconciliation” with current day Rome; we must join
it. Bishop Fellay even gave to this “reconciliation” two motives: one “dogmatic” (it’s the true
Church) and the other moral (of conscience). Otherwise, according to him, if we do not re-join the
official church we would be committing a serious sin.
B. Analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration in Particular:
1. The text of the Doctrinal Declaration.
In order to make a quick comparison between the Doctrinal Declaration of 15 April 2012 (DD)
and the Roman Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 (DP1), we will underline the text added
by Bishop Fellay.
We will also be pointing out later what Bishop Fellay removed from the Roman Doctrinal
Preamble from which, we must recall, he drew up his Declaration.
Here is the integral text of the Doctrinal Declaration (DD) as presented to Rome by Bishop
Fellay on 15 April 2012:
DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman
Pontiff, her Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter and head of the Episcopal Corps.
II. We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals, giving to each doctrinal statement the requisite degree of adherence, according to the teaching contained in no.25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II. (Cf. also the new formula of the Profession of
pp. 40
Faith and of the Oath of Fidelity on Assuming an Office to be exercised in the Name of
the Church, 1989: cf. CIC canons 749; 750 §1 and §2: 752: CCEO canons 597: 598 §1 and
§2; 599.)
III. In particular:
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine on the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops, with its head, the Pope, taught by the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican Council I and the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II, chapter III (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu), as explained and interpreted by the Nota explicativa praevia of that same chapter.
2. We acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium, to which alone has been entrusted the task of interpreting authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down,(Cf. Pius XII. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Denz. 3886.) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter
that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the apostles, i.e., the deposit of faith.” (Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Pastor
Aeternus, Denz. 3070.)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of Revelation “usque ad nos”(Council of Trent.
Denz. 1501: “This truth and instruction [which] are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have come down even to us.”) and the Church in her doctrine, life, and worship, perpetuates and transmits to all generations all that she is and all that she believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,( Cf. Vatican Council II. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 and 10; Denz. 4209-4210.) not by some contrary innovation (Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Del Filius. Denz. 3020: “Hence, also. that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never he recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. 'Therefore... let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries: but let it be solely in
its own genus, namely in the same dogma with the same sense and the same understanding.” (St. Vincent of Lerins. Commonitorium. 23.3 [n. 28]) but by a better understanding of the depositum Fidei. (Cf. Vatican I. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius. Denz. 3011; Antimodernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII. Encyclical Letter Humani Generis.
Denz. 3886: Vatican Council II. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. 10. Denz. 4213)

4. The entire Tradition of the Catholic faith must be the criterion and guide for understanding the teachings of Vatican Council II which Council in turn clarifies—i.e., deepens and makes more explicit over time—certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually. (As for
example the teaching on the sacramentality of the episcopate in Lumen Gentium, 21.)
pp. 41
5. The statements of Vatican Council II and of the subsequent papal Magisterium relative to the relation of the Catholic Church to the non-Catholic Christian confessions,
and also to the civic duty of religion and to the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is difficult to reconcile with the preceding doctrinal statements of the
Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole and uninterrupted Tradition, in a way consistent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church,
without accepting any interpretation of these statements that might lead to a presentation of Catholic doctrine that is opposed to or breaks with Tradition and with that
Magisterium.
6. For this reason it is legitimate to promote, through a legitimate discussion, the study and theological explanation of expressions or formulations of Vatican Council II
and of the subsequent Magisterium, should they seem irreconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church.( We find a parallel in history with the Decree of the Armenians of the Council of Florence, in which the presentation or the instruments was indicated as the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Nevertheless, even after that
Decree theologians legitimately discussed the exactitude of such an assertion; finally the question was resolved in another way by Pope Pius XII.)
7. We declare that we acknowledge the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments when celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does according
to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and of the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Following the criteria spelled out above (III,5), as well as canon 21 of the Code, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by the same Pontiff  (1990), without prejudice to the discipline to be granted to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X by a particular law.
–––––––––––––––
2. Suppressions and additions in Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration (DD).
a. Suppressions compared to the Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) proposed by Rome.
In his Doctrinal Declaration (DD), Bishop Fellay removed only one passage and one note, from
Paragraph III, no. 2, of Cardinal Levada’s Doctrinal Preamble (DP1):
–the text: “such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows it (cf. nn. 813-822; 2104-2109).
–the note at the end of the paragraph drawn from Paul VI’s letter cuм Jam, dated 21
September 1966, in AAS 58 (1966) 879 in which the Pope called for viewing the doctrine of the
Second Vatican Council in continuity with the preceding Magisterium.
Apart from that, all the rest of the text of Cardinal Levada’s Preamble was retained!
pp. 42
The fact that certain passages were moved and rearranged by Bp. Fellay gives the false
impression that the two docuмents differ substantially.
b. Additions in comparison with the Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 (DP1)
proposed by Rome.
The additions are as follows:
– In III.2 concerning the authority of the Magisterium, Bishop Fellay added, “recalling that
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that they might, by his
revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance, they might
religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation transmitted by the apostles, i.e., the
deposit of faith.” (Vatican Council I, dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, Dz. 3070.)
– In III.3, concerning the transmission of Tradition, to the sentence “Tradition progresses in the
Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit,” Bishop Fellay added, “not by some contrary innovation,
but by a better understanding of the depositum Fidei,” with notes.
– In III.6, Bishop Fellay added a note referring to the Council of Florence concerning the
matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
One can notice without difficulty that the single deleted passage and the three mentioned
additions made by Bp. Fellay did not change the SUBSTANCE of the Preamble proposed initially
by Rome.
In this, Bishop Fellay complied with what Cardinal Levada had asked him in his letter
accompanying the Doctrinal Preamble:
“The Congregation remains willing to consider requests for clarification or suggestions to improve the quality of these texts, without prejudice to their substance.”
This verifiable fact contradicts what Bishop Fellay and his defenders have been saying, that the
Doctrinal Declaration was “substantially different” from the Roman Preamble.
We are going to prove this contradiction with a point-by-point analysis of the Declaration.
3. Internal analysis of the 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
We will now proceed to a detailed examination of the text of Bishop Fellay’s 15 April 2012
Doctrinal Declaration (DD).
In each point, in order to show the flagrant contradiction between “Fellay1” and “Fellay2,” we
will add the criticisms that Bishop Fellay himself made (on 30 November 2011 and 12 January 2012)
of the initial Roman Preamble (DP1), while retaining most of it in his DD.
A.) Paragraph I, speaks about the fidelity to the Church and to the Pope:
“We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, her
Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter and head of the Episcopal Corps.”
Paragraphs I and II of the Declaration are very important because they define, so to speak, the
doctrinal principles of the Declaration, while in paragraph III we find the practical application of
these principles.
pp. 43
This text does not pose a problem in itself, that is, in normal times.
We will respond later, in the Responses to objections, to those who try to justify the DD in
saying that certain passages, such as this one, can be found in the Protocol of the agreement signed
and then retracted by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988.
First, can one speak of being “faithful to the Church and to the Pope” without any
restriction, distinction, or precision?
To the contrary, as we see in the text, it is said that this fidelity is promised to the Popes
“always.” One does not promise fidelity to persons or institutions in the abstract, but under
definite terms. And here it is a question of promising to always be faithful to a “conciliar pope” who,
although he is the head of the Catholic Church, is also the de facto head of the “conciliar church”! In
other words, one cannot promise to be faithful to persons who are not themselves faithful to the
Catholic Church and their predecessors!
The reason of making this restrictive condition is the fact that this profession of fidelity situates
itself in a very concrete context: the crisis of the Church in 2012, and those who are responsible for
this crisis are the same authorities to whom Bishop Fellay promises to submit himself.
Archbishop Lefebvre expressed this distinction between the Pope, as the true successor of the
Apostles, and also as a head of the line of a neo-modernist and neo-protestant church as he wrote in
his famous Declaration of 21 November 1974:
'We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith
and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Teacher of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neoProtestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.'
Archbishop Lefebvre also expressed the same distinction at the beginning of his letter to future bishops in 1987 in saying that, “the Chair of Peter and the positions in Rome are being occupied by antichrists.”
It is hard to see the Society of St. Pius X making this promise of fidelity to an authority “in itself,” when in fact we are dealing with authorities who are working to destroy what we want to
build!
Finally, the term “always” in this formula is out of place and excessive because our fidelity to
the current popes is conditioned to their fidelity to God, to his predecessors, and to the Church of
all time.
Bp. Fellay should have added this condition for our obedience to the post-conciliar Popes.
Actually, how can one promise to be “always” faithful to popes who habitually separate from their fidelity to God, to their predecessors, and to the Church of all time?
pp. 44
So, Bishop Fellay is ambiguous in this Paragraph I because he fails to make the necessary distinction between the Pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church and as a head of the “conciliar church.”
B.) Paragraph II speaks of submission to the teachings of the Magisterium, according to the conciliar doctrine of number 25 of Lumen gentium:
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals, giving to each doctrinal statement the requisite degree of adherence, according to the teaching contained in no.25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II.
[Cf. also the new formula of the Profession of Faith and of the Oath of Fidelity on
Assuming an Office to be exercised in the Name of the Church, 1989: cf. CIC canons
749; 750 §1 and §2: 752: CCEO canons 597: 598 §1 and §2; 599.]
This text poses two problems:
– First, the text itself;
– Second, the note at the bottom of the page concerning the acceptance of the Profession of Faith and of the Oath of Fidelity of 1989, as well as the citations from the new Code of Canon Law.

a.) No. 25 of Lumen gentium.
Some justify the appeal to the passage of no. 25 of Lumen gentium, because it was used by Abp. Lefebvre in the Protocol agreement of 1988. (Cf. Objections)
In itself, the sole text of no. 25 of Lumen gentium does not pose any problems, because, for the
most part, it is based on passages taken from the councils of Trent and Vatican I.
But in context it remains, nevertheless, a text that should be rejected because it eases the way
into conciliar doctrine.
The reproach made against this text of Lumen gentium is well put by Fr. Alvaro Calderon, a
professor at the SSPX seminary in Argentina in La Lampara Bajo del Celemin (The Light under the
Bushel):
'Can we at least rescue this text? Certainly not, since in the preceding chapter of this same docuмent the hierarchical office is subordinated to the sensus fidei, which obliges [one] to understand the doctrine of no. 25 in a very different manner from what was taught by Vatican I.'
But this text also carries a serious problem in its practical application. During normal times in the Church, it is perfectly acceptable (it is even a duty) to submit ourselves to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. But in the current abnormal situation in the Church, where the postconciliar popes no longer teach sound doctrine, this principle can no longer apply, because that would amount to submitting to the “conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium” and thereby giving them a “blank check”!
Furthermore, this is precisely what is going to be requested in Paragraph III.
b.) The new Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity of 1989.
It is not useless to recall the importance and seriousness of making a profession of Faith and
making an oath of fidelity. These two public acts, often made with great solemnity, and sometimes
pp. 45
before the Blessed Sacrament, carry serious obligations in conscience and under pain of mortal sin,
because one takes God, and not only man, as a witness to what is being said. And since these statements are public expressions of our Faith and of our obedience to the legitimate authorities of the Church, they cannot involve any ambiguity or equivocation because these statements have as their ultimate object, either the Truthfulness of God (in whom resides the motive for our faith), or our obedience due to men because they share on the Authority of God.
That being said, let’s begin by recalling that this new “Profession of Faith” replaced the
traditional Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent or Pius IV!
One should remember that Bishop Fellay, in his 30 November 2011 Doctrinal Preamble (DP2),
had chosen the Profession of Faith of Trent. Here, with his Doctrinal Declaration, he did the
opposite by accepting the new Profession of Faith (of 1989)!
What is said in this new profession of Faith of 1989?
The text introducing this new Profession indicates the sense to give it:
Therefore it became necessary to prepare suitable texts for the purpose of updating them as regards style and contents to bring them more into line with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent docuмents.
But above all, it is the last paragraph of the new Profession that poses the problem:
'Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.'
This last text poses a problem in its concrete application to the crisis in the Church which we are living.
The conciliar authorities, being unable to prove that the docuмents of Vatican II belong to the infallible magisterium of Church, make instead an appeal to the “authentic magisterium” which, they say, also demands an internal assent of the will and of the intellect. It is true that in normal times the Church has always asked the faithful to adhere to the authentic Magisterium because we owe internal submission to it as well, as to that which is not infallibly taught by the Church, but binding in conscience.
But today the “conciliar Church” abuses its power by appealing to this “submission” to their
authority with the clear purpose of imposing all conciliar and post-conciliar teachings arguing that
Vatican II belongs to the “authentic Magisterium,” even though there is a serious rupture with the
Traditional authentic Magisterium. Thus, to accept our “submission” to this new Profession of Faith is equivalent to handing over a “blank check” to the destroyers of the Church!
pp. 46
How can the Society continue to oppose the conciliar reforms if Bishop Fellay accepts, through
this new Profession, a submission to the “current magisterium” which has no other goal than to
“put itself more in line with the teachings of Vatican II.”
On the other hand, Archbishop Lefebvre expressly condemned several times this new
Profession of Faith, which author is none other than Cardinal Ratzinger:
'The new Profession of Faith which was written by Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly contains the acceptance of the Council and its consequences . . . How can we accept it? (Le Bourget, 19 Nov. 1989)'
'The errors of the Council and its reforms remain the official norm consecrated by Cardinal Ratzinger’s March 1989 Profession of Faith. (Spiritual Journey, p.10-11)'
'That is what creates a