12
« Last post by Twice dyed on Today at 10:48:04 AM »
[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
Recent Posts
