See attachment which is the PDF original, below this TEXT file. The Entire study is 63 pages long, but only 23 show here, sorry. PDF is very very well typeset and organized.
The original web page is gone, "
www.users.tpg.com au..." but this was written by a SSPX priest, maybe from Australia, 12 years ago. He provides some quotes from + Lefebvre, etc. well docuмented for sure. Interesting arguments.
The 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay:
Proof of Treason
by Sacerdos Lest we forget…!
Much has been said and written in recent times about the Doctrinal Declaration (DD) presented to Rome by Bishop Bernard Fellay on 15 April 2012 on behalf of the Society of St. Pius X.
Nevertheless, it seems to us that it would be important to make a detailed study of the text itself and the circuмstances surrounding it. We will also compare it to other similar docuмents.
The following study of the docuмent does not claim to be exhaustive. The only goal is to contribute to the search for truth and to open a frank and honest debate on the consequences of this text. Furthermore, this study has become necessary in order to respond to all those who have recently taken up the defense of this Declaration—not only Bishop Fellay himself, but the other SSPX bishops, priests, and laity as well.
In order to better understand the evolution of the circuмstances which surround the composition of the Doctrinal Declaration, we are going to divide our study into three parts:
Part I: Before the Declaration;
Part II: Analysis of the Declaration;
Part III: Response to the Objections.
Part I should not be neglected, because it serves to situate the different stages through which Bishop Fellay passed before writing his Doctrinal Declaration.
Part II, which is longer, will analyze the Declaration itself and the circuмstances which immediately preceded it.
Part III will mainly expose the consequences and reactions following the publication of the DD and will respond to the arguments of those who take the defense of its author.
pp. 2
CONTENTS
PART I: BEFORE THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. Why talk about it?
II. The Situation Before the Preamble of 15 April 2012
1) Bishop Fellay began by ignoring what Archbishop Lefebvre had always hold..
2) Next, bishop Fellay decides to ignore what the 2006 General Chapter had clearly decided.
3) The letter of the three Bishops of the Society, Bps. Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galarreta.
4) Finally, Bishop Fellay has contradicted himself!
III. The First Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) of Rome,14 September 2011
1. The “Preliminary Note.”
2. The Doctrinal Preamble [DP1] of 14 September 2011.
A. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in general.
B. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in particular.
IV. The Double Response of the Society (30 November 2011 and 12 January
1. The first response, dated 30 November 2011, with a proposition for a new Doctrinal
Preamble [DP2].
A. The Preliminary Note.
B. The Doctrinal Preamble 2 [DP2].
2. The second response, dated 12 January 2012 to Cardinal Levada [addendum to DP2, dated 30 November 2011]
A. On the subject of the Preamble in general.
B. On the subject of the Preamble in particular.
a. On the subject of “criteria of interpretation”:
b. On the subject of the “progress of Tradition”
c. On the subject of a practical application.
PART II: THE 15 APRIL 2012 DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. The circuмstances surrounding the declaration
1. Cardinal Levada’s Letter dated 16 March 2012.
2. Bishop Fellay’s reaction to Cardinal Levada’s Letter.
a. An optimism without foundation: Rome has changed!
pp. 3
b. The dilemma of making the good choice.
(a) The option to reject.
(b) The option to continue.
(c) The decision is made: let’s continue!
II. The 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (DD) of Bishop Fellay
A. Analysis of the Declaration in general.
1. Bishop Fellay’s Introductory Note in Cor Unum No. 104.
2. The Ambiguity of the Doctrinal Declaration
3. Bishop Fellay’s Reasons Advanced to Justify This Declaration
a.) The fear of possible sanctions from Rome.
b.) The desire to join the official Church.
B. Analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration in Particular:
1. The text of the Doctrinal Declaration.
2. Suppressions and additions in Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration (DD).
a. Suppressions compared to the Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) proposed by Rome.
b. Additions in comparison with the Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 (DP1) proposed by Rome.
3. Internal analysis of the 15 April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration.
A.) Paragraph I, speaks about the fidelity to the Church and to the Pope:
B.) Paragraph II speaks of submission to the teachings of the Magisterium, according to the conciliar doctrine of number 25 of Lumen gentium:
a.) No. 25 of Lumen gentium.
b.) The new Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity of 1989.
C. Paragraph III is indisputably the worst part of the whole docuмent.
No. 1: The Authority of the Pope and the Bishops
No. 2: The Authority of the Magisterium of the Church
No. 3: The “Progress” of Tradition:
No. 4: The criteria of interpretation between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council texts in general.
No. 5: The Criteria of Interpretation Between Tradition and the Second Vatican Council Texts on Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty
No. 6: The Opportuneness of the Doctrinal Discussions.
No. 7 : On the “Validity” and the “Legitimacy” of the New Mass and the New Sacraments
No. 8 : The Acceptance of the New Code of Canon Law.
CONCLUSION OF PART TWO.
pp. 4
PART I: BEFORE THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. Why talk about it?
The recent publication of the Doctrinal Preamble (or Doctrinal Declaration) signed by Bishop Fellay and presented to William Cardinal Levada on 15 April 2012, continues to provoke a great controversy among the priests and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X together with the Traditional Catholic world.
Those who have taken up the defense of Bishop Fellay have attempted to show that this Preamble or Declaration is “orthodox” and offer as proof the fact that Rome rejected it on 13 June 2012. Anyway, they say, Bishop Fellay has “withdrawn” it and, moreover, he has promised to no longer refer to this docuмent in future conversations with Rome, (cf. Part III: Responses to the Objections).
But others affirm the contrary, saying that an attentive study of the docuмent itself, reveals that there has been a serious change in the doctrinal positions that Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X and, formerly, Bishop Fellay himself, held regarding the Second Vatican Council, the New Mass, and the new Code of Canon Law. The stakes are high, because this doctrinal docuмent is supposed to delineate the official doctrinal position of the Society of St. Pius X vis-à-vis the conciliar novelties, before advancing toward a possible practical accord with the official Church, similar to that which was promised by Rome and desired by Bishop Fellay.
This is why, during the drafting of this docuмent, each word should be carefully weighed so as to verify if it conforms to the Catholic Theology of all time. Further, this docuмent must correspond with the reality of the crisis situation which the Church has been suffered (sic) in for the past 50 years and its possible solution.We must keep in mind that it has been 24 years since the Society has submitted to Rome a docuмent of such importance, a docuмent setting the doctrinal foundation for a canonical regularization.
Indeed, since 5 May 1988, the date upon which Archbishop Lefebvre signed Cardinal Ratzinger’s Protocol of agreement—which he retracted the next day—the Society has never been so close to enter into a doctrinal and practical agreement of incalculable consequences, an agreement which would decide its future, whether to continue or not the work of condemning modernist errors, defending Tradition and restoring the Church.
Above all, the priests (to whom this study is primarily intended) should not neglect the study of the doctrinal questions underlying this docuмent, through intellectual laziness or under the pretext that it is only “pastoral” work that counts. Unfortunately, we well know how after the Council these same negligent attitudes drove the majority of the clergy and bishops to accept the conciliar errors, slowly but surely. Therefore, we must not repeat these same actions and errors.
pp. 5
I would especially like to invite my brother priests in the Society of St. Pius X, who are either perplexed, or disoriented, or even favorably disposed towards this docuмent, to look into this serious problem, because on this depends whether or not we keep the principles always held by Archbishop Lefebvre, and, not so long ago, even by Bishop Fellay. In these particular circuмstances, if we want to be faithful to our priestly work and produce spiritual fruit in souls, we must first of all defend doctrinal purity. But the defense of doctrine requires the refutation of and combat of modern errors which have been ravaging the Church for over 50 years; to do otherwise would be to commit the sin of omission.
So, the principal stakes are these: if the continuation of our fight for Tradition is compromised by official, ambiguous texts signed by our superiors, the common good of the Society would be put in danger by the betrayal of truth and a grave compromise with conciliar authorities.
II. The Situation Before the Preamble of 15 April 2012
Following the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, and the lifting of the “excommunications” of the four Society bishops in 2009, and despite the fact that these two acts of Benedict XVI were insufficient and poisoned, Bishop Fellay hastened to thank the Pope for these “generous acts” and chose to commit to doctrinal meetings with Rome.
The meetings between the Roman theologians and the Society theologians took place from 27 October 2009 through 11 April 2011. These doctrinal discussions with conciliar Rome were necessary, provided that they served to make the authorities understand the gravity of their errors and so convince them to return to Tradition.
The doctrinal discussions, which were justified in trying to convert Rome, thus began on a bad basis with a compromise of principles. Rome’s refusal to properly give us the preconditions set down by Bishop Fellay in 2007 and 2009 was, however, the first sign that we should not continue. What was the conclusion of these meetings? No surprise! It was impossible to come to an understanding on the doctrinal level! Bishop de Galarreta, the president of the theological commission of the Society, has clearly stated that these discussions have shown that the Roman authorities “are not ready to give up the Second Vatican Council,” that they want “to bring us back to it,” and that they want us to return so that the Society can be “useful” and only “to support the renewal of the reform in continuity.” (Albano, 7 October 2011)
Bishop Fellay, himself, publicly declared the same thing, “the discussions manifested a profound disagreement on almost all the points that were addressed.” (Cor Unum, March 2012). So, if at the end of the doctrinal discussions in 2011, Rome refused to adhere to the encyclicals condemning modern errors, an essential condition demanded by Archbishop Lefebvre for any agreement, what good was there in continuing?
pp. 6
But, despise this impasse, five months later, Cardinal Levada, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, invited Bishop Fellay and his two assistants to a meeting on 14 September 2011 in order to “make an assessment on these interviews” and “to view the future prospect.” (Cor Unum, no. 103)
The Cardinal sent them a letter along with:
1) a proposal for a Doctrinal Preamble, (DP) with the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity of 1989; and
2) the project for a possible canonical regularization of the Society of St. Pius X. The Cardinal then gave them one month to “disclose the official position of the Society regarding this docuмentation.”
He told them he was ready “to take into consideration all requests for precision or suggestions intended to improve the quality of these texts, except their substance.” In other words, despite eventual changes of details being made, the Society must always accept the essentials of the Preamble proposed by Rome on 14 September 2011.
We must ask ourselves this: if Rome does not leave “maneuvering room” to substantially modify the Preamble text, what good is it to continue? We must also point out that the Cardinal wants to go beyond the purely doctrinal discussions and wants to go ahead and begin working on a practical agreement, hence the inclusion of some elements for a canonical regularization of the Society, elements that, incidentally, the members of the Society have never seen. In other words, if the Society accepts the “doctrinal exam,” vis-à-vis the Roman authorities, then it will have a right to a canonical regularization.
For the Society, at this time, to agree to continue the dialogues with Rome would totally change the situation between the two parties:
– the doctrinal discussions of 2009-2011, although the preliminary conditions had not been properly fulfilled, had established an even footing between the Society and Rome, because they had been discussing the points as between theologians, “peer to peer”
– on the other hand, in the new situation, it is Rome who gets the upper hand, who offers the docuмents to be signed, and, above all, who decides, in the final analysis, if the Society is right or wrong!
At that point Bishop Fellay had a duty to take a new look at a second strong sign in Rome’s unacceptable 14 September 2011 demands and to stop all negotiations at that time, instead he committed two serious mistakes of judgment here, which would be fatal for him later:
– Despite the fact that the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions had reached the conclusion that the Society could not agree with modernist Rome, he was going to try to reach a semblance of a
pp. 7
doctrinal accord, an accord fatally destined to be ambiguous, since Rome had asked that the substance of the unacceptable text of 14 September 2011 should remain unchanged.
– And from that moment on he also accepted (from) to enter into the practical domain with the perspective of a canonical regularization, without a clear doctrinal accord and on the basis of a text that he had himself declared bad.
As proof of his blindness, Bishop Fellay accepted the new Roman propositions and so decided to ignore the advice of
1) Archbishop Lefebvre, 2) the 2006 General Chapter, 3) the three other Society bishops, and 4) to top it all, to contradict his own earlier statements.
1) Bishop Fellay began by ignoring what Archbishop Lefebvre had always hold..
The Archbishop said after the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations: I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue [of 1988]. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. (Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter, no. 66, Nov.-Dec. 1988.)
What is the “position” during the dialogues of 1988 in which Archbishop Lefebvre no longer wanted to find himself? Why, from that point on, did he speak of demanding Rome for “a doctrinal plan,” when the 1988 accord contained a “doctrinal declaration”? It means that in 1988 Abp. Lefebvre fixed the following principle:
When they ask us to adhere, at least implicitly, to the conciliar errors and reforms, it is up to us to test the doctrinal fidelity of the Roman authorities, not the other way around!
Therefore, without a clear and genuine acceptance by present-day Rome of the encyclicals mentioned by Abp. Lefebvre, “no dialogue is possible. It is useless!” The main reason being that, if Abp. Lefebvre, after having tried to come to a practical agreement in 1988 without having resolved the doctrinal problem, decided to stop everything then, since our differences with Rome are above all of a doctrinal nature, so likewise we should not commit ourselves to a practical agreement if the doctrinal problem has not been resolved.
Now, it is evident that the current Roman authorities do not accept these encyclicals which condemn modern errors. And still worse, they promote them and boast about them! Further, in his letter to Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre set down the same condition: The conversations and meetings . . . persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived . . . Given the refusal to consider our requests, and being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we
pp. 8
believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition . . . We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its two-thousand-year-old Tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth. (Letter from Abp. Lefebvre to John Paul II; 2 June 1988)
Before envisioning a “frank and efficacious collaboration” with Rome, we must wait for the “return of Rome to Tradition.” Modernist Rome must “become once more” Catholic in adhering to the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church.
Now, if one examines Cardinal Levada’s letter of 14 September 2011, there are two parts: one doctrinal with the Preamble to sign, and one practical with the canonical regularization. Thus, Bishop Fellay knew perfectly well that if he succeeded in passing the first step, he would have to accept the other. One (practical) will follow the other (doctrinal).
But here it was not about to place the discussions on the “doctrinal level” of which Abp. Lefebvre spoke. On the contrary, it was precisely about bypassing the doctrinal condition concerning the conversion of Rome! Especially when Bp. Fellay had the evidence that the conclusions of the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions showed that Rome had not changed one iota of its doctrinal errors.
If Rome refuses to change, to convert, what good is there in continuing? But Bishop Fellay prefers to continue, by committing himself to the prospect of a practical agreement, and by deciding to consider the propositions of Cardinal Levada’s letter.
Thus, is it not a serious imprudence by Bishop Fellay not to take into consideration Archbishop Lefebvre’s warnings? He acts contrary to the virtue of prudence, which demands always to follow the advice of prudent men. Unfortunately this will not be the only time that Bishop Fellay will decide to ignore prudent advice.
2) Next, bishop Fellay decides to ignore what the 2006 General Chapter had clearly decided.
The 2006 Chapter advised against any practical agreement with Rome without first resolving the doctrinal problem: the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, “reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life.” (Declaration of the 2006 General Chapter of the SSPX) In that declaration, the 2006 Chapter was only following what Abp. Lefebvre recommended, which they quoted with the same text we mentioned above. Bishop Fellay, in a conference given to the priests of the South American District in October 2012, contemptuously rejected this Chapter condition, describing it as “impractical.” He said that there was no hope of resolving the doctrinal problems from Rome’s side and that all we could hope
pp. 9
to get from them would only be the “power to criticize the reforms.” He affirmed that his position is more “concrete” and “easier to verify,” and that, in the end, it is “the same” as that of the 2006 Chapter. Is this true? It is evident that it is not about what the 2006 Chapter spoke, because the two ways are opposed! Bishop Fellay is truly making a fool of the Chapter which explicitly said that the “only goal” of the contacts with Rome was to “help them to reclaim Tradition”—that is, to help them join Tradition.
At present, there is another goal: Bishop Fellay speaks of only obtaining “the right to criticize” the reforms, no more. This new position represents a considerable step back, because the subject of the request has totally changed: for the 2006 Chapter it is Rome who must change; for Bishop Fellay in 2012, it is no longer necessary for Rome to change (at least, not yet . . . he must wait for new discussions so as to hope that Rome changes).
Bishop Fellay at present begs Rome the permission for the Society to criticize the errors. Thus the Society is on inferior position with Rome, while formerly the only thing the 2006 Chapter demanded from Rome was its conversion.
Therefore, the 2006 Chapter and Bp. Fellay are not speaking about the same thing! And even in supposing that Liberal Rome gave us this “right to criticize,” we must remember that no Ecclesia Dei adflicta community has ever been able to put into practice the “right to criticize” since 1988, even though that right had been promised to them at times by Rome in their foundation docuмents!
So it is clear: Bishop Fellay totally ignores this condition passed by the 2006 Chapter to whom he owes obedience because it is above him. We see in him, once again, disobedience and a serious imprudence.
3) The letter of the three Bishops of the Society, Bps. Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galarreta.
They wrote a common letter warning Bishop Fellay and his two Assistants of the same danger:
“The 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions have proven that a doctrinal agreement with present-day Rome is impossible .” They manifest “their formal opposition to any kind of [practical] agreement.” (Letter to Bishop Fellay from the Three Bishops, 7 April 2012). It is clear that his three brothers in the Episcopacy, without wanting to impose a decision upon Bp. Fellay, tried in all charity to warn him of the serious consequences of a practical agreement with Rome, because the doctrinal talks proved a doctrinal agreement with Rome to be impossible.
pp. 10
What was Bishop Fellay and Frs. N. Pfluger and A.-M. Nély’s response? In their letter they make these horrific statements:
'We did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Pope’s offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome does not tolerate it any longer'.
And then:
'It is not realistic to require that everything be settled before arriving at what you call a practical agreement'. (Response from Bishop Fellay to the three Bishops, 14 April 2012.) Here Bishop Fellay not only rejects the warnings of the three bishops, but also those made by Archbishop Lefebvre made in 1988 and by the 2006 General Chapter, because these warnings follow the same prudential, practical line.
In the first paragraph, Bishop Fellay clearly sacrifices the common good of the Society so as to follow Rome’s orders. The fact that “Rome does not tolerate it any longer” is not a valid argument, because we are not obligated to obey a pope’s orders, which would harm the Society, as long as he has not converted. Archbishop Lefebvre said (Fideliter, no. 66) that he would refuse to talk with Rome as long as they would not accept the encyclicals which condemn the modern errors. Therefore, as long as the Pope and the Curia are of bad will, we are not obliged to obey their orders to participate in talks and we are even less obliged to obey their orders to make a practical agreement, an agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre made dependent on the conversion of the Roman authorities.
This is particularly serious on Bishop Fellay’s part, because his first obligation in the capacity of the Superior General of the Society, is to preserve and take care of the common good of the Society.Note 1
1. In the second paragraph, Bishop Fellay and his Assistants openly contradicted Archbishop Lefebvre, who, on the contrary, because of the failure of the practical agreement of 1988, learned his lesson and did not want to repeat the same errors. Does Bishop Fellay think that he is more of a realist and wiser than Archbishop Lefebvre, the 2006 General Chapter and his brother Bishops? Why did Bishop Fellay not listen to these people who only wanted the good of the Society?
Note 1 There is no obligation of obedience to the Pope in these practical governing matters as long as he is not a good leader of the Church, that is, as long as he does not defend the true Faith. It would be foolish to compromise the common good, security and stability of those who have the Faith so as to satisfy the orders of a Pope who behaves as an enemy of the Church by making the members to lose their Faith.
pp. 11
One cannot help but notice in what a pitiful state Bp. Fellay and his Assistants have put the Society! So, who has sinned by being “unrealistic” or rather by “idealism,” not to mention “irresponsibility,” if not Bp. Fellay and his Assistants?
4) Finally, Bishop Fellay has contradicted himself!
Just before the 2006 Chapter meeting, he was opposed to any practical agreement which would not resolve first the doctrinal problem: In any event it is impossible and inconceivable to pass to the third stage before these discussions have succeeded in exposing and correcting the principles at the root of the crisis. However, it is obvious that we will not sign any agreements until such time as things are resolved on the level of principles . . . we cannot allow ambiguities . . . So in order to resolve the issue the Roman authorities would have to clearly and unambiguously manifest, for all the world to see, that there is only one way of coming out of the crisis, namely that of the Church fully rediscovering her own bi-millennium Tradition. The day when this conviction will be clear for the Roman authorities . . . will be the time when agreements can be very easily made. (Interview with Bishop Fellay by Fr. Grégoire Célier, Fideliter, May-June 2006)
But unfortunately “Fellay 2” of 2011 prevailed over “Fellay 1” of 2006. Five years later he preferred to follow the agenda imposed by Cardinal Levada. Bishop Fellay will pay dearly for this decision because, in the end, he will neither win his case in the doctrinal domain, nor in the practical domain.
In the doctrinal domain: instead of making Rome move back, it was he who stepped back, making serious concessions with his shameful Doctrinal Declaration. In the practical domain: he ended up dividing the Society, alienating a large part of the Society, the friendly Traditional communities, and many of the faithful. It is still a source of frustration for Bp. Fellay and his cohorts for not achieving the so much desired practical agreement; thus he would give anything now to get the negotiations back on the table! (See response to objections)
Therefore, this was the spirit that prevailed in the mind of Bishop Fellay when he received Cardinal Levada’s letter of 15 September 2011 with the new proposals.
Now let us consider the 14 September 2011 Preamble presented by Rome to Bishop Fellay, which it had agreed not to change its substance.
III. The First Doctrinal Preamble (DP1) of Rome, 14 September 2011
1. The “Preliminary Note.”
pp. 12
In the first Preamble, presented by Rome to Bp. Fellay, the accompanying Preliminary Note spoke of its contents which:
defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and 'sentire cuм Ecclesia', while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explication of expressions or particular formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Magisterium.
In reading the text of the Preamble of 14 December 2011, we notice that:
– “The doctrinal principles,” are none other than the most serious Conciliar errors such as collegiality, religious liberty, and the new ecclesiology!
– “The interpretation criteria” of these “principles” are none other than “the hermeneutic of continuity” which claims to reconcile these errors with Tradition!
Then, when this Preliminary Note speaks of “faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and 'sentire cuм Ecclesia',” we know that, since Vatican II, it refers to “the Conciliar Church,” which Abp. Lefebvre said was in an adulterous union with the Revolution!
Finally, when the cardinal speaks of leaving open “to legitimate discussion the study. . . of the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Magisterium,” this is the “carrot” given to the superiors of the Society to make them believe that this could signify a questioning of the Council.
Conciliar Rome promised the same “legitimate discussion” to all the Ecclesia Dei communities since 1988, but one after the other, they have ceased criticizing and have even accepted the conciliar novelties (as Le Barroux has accepted religious liberty). Then one must wonder: How can Bishop Fellay not see that this “legitimate discussion” authorized on paper is only a trap and indeed permits no real questioning of the Council?
One is thus surprised by the naiveté of Bishop Fellay when:
– in his response letter of 30 November 2011 he states that the Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 “eventually (?) leaves the door open for a further doctrinal discussion”; and
–he says even more enthusiastically in his letter of 12 January 2012 that “the preliminary note indicates a movement in our favor.”
We disagree with Bishop Fellay when he speaks of “a movement in our favor.” Where is it? It is clear that, from the first conversations between the Society and present-day Rome, the only “movement” that anyone could notice on their part is to lead us back to the Conciliar Church! This is what Abp. Lefebvre said when he put an end to the 1988 discussions: “the goal of this reconciliation is not the same for the Holy See as it is for us.” (Letter to the Pope, 2 June 1988). And, then, is it true, as Bishop Fellay affirms, that this Note to the Preamble casually “leaves the door open for a further doctrinal discussion”?
pp. 13
After having treated all the subjects upon which there was disagreement, were the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions not enough? Was not the conclusion sufficiently clear? No doctrinal agreement possible! What did remain then to “discuss” with modernist Rome, especially when the same Note says that the “acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble that follows is the principal foundation of full reconciliation with the Apostolic See.”?
It is clear that there remained nothing of further importance to discuss with the Society. But by September 2011 the time had come for Rome to submit Bishop Fellay to a test on doctrine…
2. The Doctrinal Preamble [DP1] of 14 September 2011.
A. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in general.
This Preamble submitted by Modernist Rome is a “masterpiece” of cunning and ambiguity! It is a “recycling” of the doctrinal propositions that had already been made to the Society in the past. Its authors are probably the same Modernist theologians who participated in the recent theological discussions with the Society.
Yet Bishop Fellay was aware of the trap in this Roman Preamble, as shown by what he said in the Cor Unum of March 2012 in reference to these propositions:
“Thus we have received a proposal that tried to make us enter into the scheme of the hermeneutic of continuity.”
But we must call attention to the fact that in his Doctrinal Declaration of 15 April 2012, Bishop Fellay accepts the most important parts of this Preamble, of which he is so suspicious, by accepting the concept of “living Tradition,” which fits into the logic of “the hermeneutic of continuity”!
B. The Doctrinal Preamble of 14 September 2011 in particular.
It is composed of five parts:
–The promise of fidelity to the Church and to the Pope (I);
–The acceptance of the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals, according to the doctrine of section no. 25 of Lumen gentium (II);
–The declaration of acceptance of the conciliar doctrines (III): on the Pope and the college of bishops [collegiality];
on ecuмenism and religious liberty;
on the new notion of Tradition and its development.
–The acceptance of the validity and legitimacy of the Traditional Mass and sacraments, as well as those of the editio typica of Paul VI and John Paul II (IV);
pp. 14
–The acceptance of the new Code of Canon Law (1983).
The text of the doctrinal Preamble is not surprising by its originality, because on the one side it took up again some elements from the 1988 Protocol, and on the other it only repeated what the conciliar Church has been demanding from the Society for more than 40 years: the doctrines of the Second Vatican Council, the new Mass and the new Code of Canon Law. Rome reinforced its demands in affirming that it is the current Magisterium who decides what
belongs to Tradition.
Therefore, the decision in the last instance about any controversy on the content of Tradition always comes back to the current authorities. Thus, according to “the hermeneutic of continuity” of Benedict XVI, it would be enough for the current Roman authorities to affirm that there is nothing contrary to Tradition in the Council and the conciliar reforms! Roma locuta est. Causa finita est!
It is relatively easy to answer this docuмent, given that these themes have been studied and
refuted a great deal by Abp. Lefebvre and traditional theologians for 50 years.
So then, what is Bishop Fellay going to do?
IV. The Double Response of the Society (30 November 2011 and 12 January 2012).
1. On 7 October 2011, Bishop Fellay, seeing the importance of the moment and wanting to obtain the Society’s general approval for his response to Cardinal Levada, decided to consult the major superiors and bishops during a meeting held in Albano-Laziale, Italy.
However, Bishop Fellay decided to unjustly exclude Bishop Williamson from this meeting, because he refused to promise to be silent about the content of the Roman text and he refused to stop the publication of his Eleison Comments. Actually the real reason is that he could be a major obstacle to a compromise with Rome. Furthermore, we wonder how Bishop Fellay succeeded in getting the support for this unjust exclusion…
The superiors attending, after familiarizing themselves with the text of the Preamble, decided to leave the task of responding to Cardinal Levada to Bishop Fellay.
Bishop de Galarreta gave us a good summary of what was discussed in this meeting, when he said that the offers from Rome were “for the most part, confusing, misleading, false, and essentially bad,” and that the Doctrinal Preamble was “worse than the 1988 Protocol, in particular in relation to the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium.” He also affirmed that to pursue the contacts “will necessarily bring about evils on the common good that we possess, namely, that of the Society and of the family of Tradition.” (7 October 2011).
But the content of Cardinal Levada’s Preamble and the response to it, were shrouded in so
much “mystery,” that they were kept secret for more than a year to most of Society members,— which did not contribute to preserving confidence in the superiors.
pp. 15
Most of these docuмents (but not all) were at last published in Cor Unum no. 103 and 104 after the text of the Doctrinal Declaration of 15 April 2012 had been “leaked” on the Internet. Note 2
2. The answer given by the Society was duplicitous:
–A first short response, dated 30 November 2011;
–A second longer response, dated 12 January 2012, following the request for “additional information” by Bishop Pozzo, Secretary for the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Cor Unum did not publish this letter from Bishop Pozzo.
1. The first response, dated 30 November 2011, with a proposition for a new Doctrinal Preamble [DP2].
This response contained two parts:
–a Preliminary Note;
–a new Doctrinal Preamble.
The Society’s response, dated 30 November 2011, mainly contained good passages in the spirit of Abp. Lefebvre after 1988, but also began to make concessions and contain ambiguities. We shall see that they lacked two important elements and that one unacceptable element was introduced therein.
A. The Preliminary Note.
After recalling the theological discussions with Rome that took place between 2009 and 2011,
Bishop Fellay’s Note pointed out that these exchanges:
have highlighted important positional differences which concern the reception of the Second Vatican
Council and the post-conciliar magisterium. These differences could not and cannot be overcome through the
argument of the hermeneutic of continuity. There are some ruptures that are too obvious.
The Note then recalls that: the Society of St. Pius X confesses the full Catholic faith and only aims to profess it integrally and to live it.
It also recalls the main conciliar errors: religious liberty, the negation of the unity and exclusivity
of the Church, secularism, ecuмenism, the universal priesthood of the faithful.
Note 2 We should point out that, contrary to Bishop Fellay’s actions, Abp. Lefebvre did not make a “mystery” about the docuмents he was exchanging with Rome. Sometimes he even opened them in front of the seminarians at Écône, as he did with a letter he had just received from Paul VI during a spiritual conference!
pp. 16
Later, the refusal of the new Code of Canon Law, is clearly expressed because of the “same ambiguities that are in the Council,” and they ask to keep the 1917 Code.
On the new Mass, after granting its “sacramental validity,” as was also asserted by Abp. Lefebvre, the Note affirms that in this Mass:
“We see there an evil behind its deficiencies which in themselves explain the liturgical disaster for the most part.”
All that is corroborated by a well known quotation from the Brief Critical Examination [the “Ottavani Intervention”] by cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.
Concerning the possible canonical normalization of the Society:
“This must allow us without ambiguity to continue our life and our apostolate as we have done it up to the current time.”
The Note then adds a quotation from the famous 21 November 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre.
In the conclusion of the response one finds in the fifth paragraph:
This is why it is impossible for us to accept the text of the Doctrinal preamble as it was sent to us. Its acceptance would have involved us in a harmful ambiguity and sown confusion among the members of the Society as well as among the faithful who are entrusted to it. We want to remain faithful to the charism of our
foundation at any price, calling the errors by their name and preserving unity in our own ranks, so as to better
serve the Church.
Thus Bishop Fellay openly rejected the DP1, because in conscience, it is gravely unacceptable in conscience.
Yet we note two omissions which create an ambiguity:
Bishop Fellay’s response only deals with the New Mass. He omits speaking about the new sacraments. Regarding the Mass, for him it is only a question about accepting its validity in itscelebration. It avoids the important question about the legitimacy of its promulgation.
B. The Doctrinal Preamble 2 [DP2].
Therefore, Bishop Fellay proposes as an exchange for DP1, his own very short docuмent, the Doctrinal Preamble [DP2], consisting of:
(1) the Profession [of faith] of the Council of Trent;
or
pp. 17
(2) the Profession [of faith] of the Council of Trent and acceptance of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council together with no. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, with the indication that all the texts of the Second Vatican Council must be understood according to the antimodernist oath eodem sensu eademque semper sententiam ab apostolis per orthodoxos patres ad nos usque transmissam [transmitted even to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation], which would require the reformulation of certain Vatican II texts.
a. The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent (or of Pius IV, and later called ‘of the
First Vatican Council’). It was until 1989 the official Profession of Faith in the Church, therefore nothing could be more
natural than to quote it.
b. The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus
This essential docuмent of the First Vatican Council is a good reference since it also specifies the limits and conditions of the infallibility of the pope.
c. No. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.
This is the only quotation taken from Cardinal Levada’s Doctrinal Preamble [DP1].
This text from Vatican II’s Lumen gentium, taken from Chapter III, “On the Hierarchical Structure of the Church and in Particular on the Episcopate,” and treating about the “teaching
function of the bishops,” says:
A religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to,
according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
We will show later, in the Part II, why this passage from Lumen gentium is unacceptable.
2. The second response, dated 12 January 2012 to Cardinal Levada [addendum to DP2,
dated 30 November 2011]. The Ecclesia Dei Commission, visibly dissatisfied by the first response dated 30 November 2011, asked Bishop Fellay, through the intermediary Bishop Pozzo, for “additional information” which
would be remitted by Bishop Fellay on 12 January 2012.
This docuмent, as submitted by Bishop Fellay, was intended “to clarify the reasons for our position and
the scope of the docuмent.”
It is composed of three parts:
(A) the Preamble in general,
(B) the Preamble in particular,
pp. 18
and (C) its practical application.
It is remarkable by its lucidity and its firmness in the analysis of the traps proposed by the
Doctrinal Preamble 1 [DP1], and it refutes them in detail, point by point. Note 3
A. On the subject of the Preamble in general.
The 12 January 2012 docuмent affirms that “the major problems uncovered by certain novelties of Vatican
II . . . have not been resolved” by the Roman Preamble, and that this one, instead of correcting them, asked the Society “to mend its ways”!
Even more, Bp. Fellay maintains:
The Preamble imposes on us all the novelties about which we have already shown the difficulties, the
reluctances, the oppositions which remain” and these require “the pure and simple acceptance of a position
contrary to our concerns and our authority.”
This analysis shows well that until that moment Bishop Fellay clearly saw the traps contained in the Roman Preamble, but at the same time, he became “myopic,” because he did not discern that the time for doctrinal discussions with Rome has ended! In a way, Rome in saying: “we listened to you before, and during the doctrinal discussions; now it is time for you to submit to the novelties.”
This is why Cardinal Levada’s Note presenting the Roman Doctrinal Preamble specified, “we take as a principal basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which follows.” Thus, if there is a “full reconciliation” with the signing of the Preamble, there is nothing else to discuss…
B. On the subject of the Preamble in particular.
Then, the 12 January Letter enumerated the specific problems that the conciliar novelties pose to Catholic Faith.
First, Bishop Fellay pointed out that the text that creates the most problems is in paragraph III
of the Preamble. He raised the question of the “criteria for interpretation of the contentious texts,”
and the notion of the “progress of Tradition,” subjects dear to the Modernists.
a. On the subject of “criteria of interpretation”:
Note 3: It is important to note here that at this time (January 2012) Bishop Fellay seemed to
stand firm on the line drawn by Abp. Lefebvre and the Society, at least in terms of public
docuмents. It is that “firm” bishop that we will call “Fellay 1,” because later we will see appear (or
come to light?) a more ambiguous and accommodating “Fellay 2,” very different from the first.]
pp. 19
It is Rome’s a priori justification for making changes with the post-conciliar magisterium in
relation to Tradition.
For Rome, this “criteria of interpretation” means only the integration of Vatican II and the postconciliar magisterium into the Tradition of the Church, by means of the “hermeneutic of
continuity.” For them, considering Vatican II as being “in rupture,” is the error of both the
“radical” conciliars and of the Society of St. Pius X, with the difference that the first supports this
rupture but the second in deplores it.
In the Hegelian mind of Benedict XVI, it is always possible to harmonize two ideas or positions
which are objectively opposed, but subjectively “reconcilable” through reason. It is a risky bit of
“mental gymnastics,” which openly contradicts factual reality. To deny that after Vatican II there
was a rupture with the past, as Benedict XVI has done, is folly and blindness. It is evident, for
example, that little or no reference is made in the conciliar or post-conciliar docuмents to the preJohn XXIII Magisterium.
The Society attempted to respond to this point by mentioning the famous interpretation of the Council “in the light of Tradition.” But this expression does not go very far, because it only puts
forth an ad hominem argument and not an in-depth argument.
Indeed, the expression to interpret the Second Vatican Council “in the light of Tradition”
signifies for the Society that one excludes the novelties of the Council which are clearly in a state of
rupture or discontinuity with the Magisterium of all time, but today’s Rome comes to the opposite
conclusion in saying that there is no rupture!
This expression, “to accept the Council in the light of Tradition” is defective. Indeed, there are
many passages in the Council that are totally unacceptable and, even with the best will in the world,
they cannot be interpreted otherwise than by what they state. For example, accepting Gaudium et spes
or Dignitatis humanae “in the light of Tradition” is totally impossible. Vatican II goes against Tradition
in these docuмents and one cannot make them say the opposite of what they mean.
Therefore, accepting the Council “in the light of Tradition” also could mean recognizing that
there exists a possible “traditional interpretation” of all the texts, which is precisely what affirms the
doctrine of the “hermeneutic of continuity.”
It is true that Bishop Fellay said that he would reject certain unacceptable elements of the
Council. But, he never sent a list of them in an official text to Rome or explained in detail those
elements he would reject.
So, there are two speeches: one for us, one for Rome. The written docuмents that Bishop
Fellay sent to Rome speak of a desire to accept the Council “in the light of Tradition.” That is, he
intimates that he considers that all the Council could be read in a “traditional” way. Therefore, Bp.
Fellay defends the hermeneutic of continuity without naming it but renaming it “light of Tradition.”
In addition, the word “Tradition” does not have the same meaning for us as for Rome. We
consider that some of the Council or of the post-conciliar magisterium texts must be interpreted
pp. 20
according to St. Thomas Aquinas, while the Pope would impose upon us Karl Rahner’s
interpretation, for example, in considering that there is no rupture!
Finally, Bishop Fellay said in the letter dated 12 January 2012, that to commit himself “to go
further, would be to build on uncertainty.” Did he thus reject the text proposed by Rome? Is he finally
going to stop everything? Surprisingly not, since Bishop Fellay refused to stop the negotiations with
Rome, and proposed a new Preamble [DP2], that of 30 November 2011, which we have quoted
above. With his DP2 of 30 November 2011, Bishop Fellay thought that it was still possible for him to
present, like a “cunning student,” another copy of the paper exam, which notably avoided mention
of the controversial conciliar texts, but one could see that Cardinal Levada was not of the same
mind.
b. On the subject of the “progress of Tradition”
This “progress” of tradition is the attempt to justify, a posteriori, by today’s Rome, the changes
made by the conciliar and post-conciliar magisterium regarding traditional doctrine. The idea of
heterogeneous (in a different sense) “progress” of dogma has always been a banner dear to
Modernists, who believe in the constant evolution of the truth. Therefore, it is not surprising that
modernist Rome also wanted to justify the changes made by the Council as being the fruit of a
normal, “dynamic” progress.
Against this heterogeneous progress, the Society responded to Rome by recalling what St.
Vincent Lerins (†450) had taught on the homogeneous progress of doctrine in his Commonitorium
(Aide-memoire), which was quoted by the First Vatican Council in the Constitution Dei Filius:
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.
[Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, §23:3] (Denz. 3020)
Next, Bishop Fellay’s letter said that certain conciliar texts and post-conciliar reforms “are not
consistent with that doctrine” [of continuity with Tradition], as he observed during the doctrinal
discussions. Note 4
Furthermore, the letter continues:
The crisis [of the Church] is directly tied to the reforms introduced in the name of the Council: New
Mass, new ecuмenical orientation, new exercise of authority by way of collegiality, new doctrine on religious
Note 4 Bp. Fellay used an unfortunate expression when in a letter to Rome dated 12 January 2012
affirmed that the traditional Magisterium “promulgates several novelties,” because, strictly speaking,
the Magisterium of the Catholic Church never promulgates any “novelty,” but, au contraire, before
the proclamation of a dogma, the Church must be sure that this truth was always believed, at least
implicitly.
pp. 21
liberty, etc. The bad fruits . . . which find their roots in the Council, more exactly in the silences and the equivocations of its texts, its open door, its displacement of accents or perspective, and even its errors against the doctrine of the faith.
c. On the subject of a practical application.
Bishop Fellay is realistic about the practical application of the Preamble, when he asks himself:
How can they ask us for an adhesion to “always changing and badly explained theses”?
Furthermore, if the freedom to criticize which is promised to the Society radically excludes the
possibility of criticizing new destructive acts towards the Church, then “the new situation [of an
agreement] would be worse than it is now.”
He logically concludes in affirming that, “we find ourselves faced with the incapacity to sign this Preamble, especially when it is about the substance of the text and not about simple details.”
What can we conclude from these two responses of Bishop Fellay and of his 30 November
2011 Doctrinal Preamble [DP2]?
These two responses by Bishop Fellay to the Roman Preamble [DP1], despite several
deficiencies, are still somewhat correct, at least in their conclusions.
But it is worth remembering that absolutely all the criticisms that Bishop Fellay had just made
about the Roman Preamble in these two responses carry no weight, because, as we can see for
ourselves, three months later on 15 April 2012, he redacted his own Doctrinal Declaration by taking
95% of the same Preamble he had just rejected!
pp. 22
PART II: THE 15 APRIL 2012 DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I. The circuмstances surrounding the declaration
Before moving on to the analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration [DD] given to Cardinal Levada by
Bishop Fellay on 15 April 2012, let us recall the events which immediately preceded his composition:
– 16 March 2012, Cardinal Levada responded via a letter to Bishop Fellay refusing Bishop
Fellay’s Doctrinal Preamble [DP2].
– 15 April 2012, Bishop Fellay sent his Doctrinal Declaration [DD];
– 13 June 2012, the Doctrinal Declaration [DD] was rejected by Rome, who presented a new
Doctrinal Preamble [DP3].
1. Cardinal Levada’s Letter dated 16 March 2012.
In this letter, Cardinal Levada expressed to Bishop Fellay his “sadness” upon learning of his
“refusal to accept the text of the Preamble [of 14 September 2011] which [he] had been given.”
The Cardinal began by rejecting what he called the “alternative solutions” proposed by the Society,
that is, the Doctrinal Preamble [PD2] dated 30 November 2011, that was written entirely by the
Society.
Afterwards, he affirmed that these solutions were “not sufficient to solve the doctrinal issues that are at
the root of the rupture between the Holy See and the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, because they do not directly address
the controversial issues relating to certain doctrinal teachings of Vatican II and the Papal Magisterium that followed
it.”
He quoted Benedict XVI, at the time of the lifting of the “excommunications” in 2009, who
reproached the Society, saying “you cannot freeze the magisterial authority” in the period before Vatican II
[Council], which furthermore “contains the entire doctrinal history of the Church.”
He particularly referenced paragraph III of the Doctrinal Preamble, on “the unity of the
Magisterium,” which, according to him, excludes all opposition between the present and the
preceding Magisterium, because thinking otherwise “means objectively placing one’s own judgment
above the Magisterium itself.”
Then the Cardinal became threatening:
To refuse the Doctrinal Preamble, expressly approved by the Holy Father, is de facto to refuse fidelity to the Roman Pontiff and the Magisterium of the Church today (cf. nn. I and II of the Doctrinal Preamble);
this involves a rupture of communion with the Roman Pontiff and the canonical consequences that ensue, according to canons 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law.
pp. 23
In other words, the Cardinal threatens to declare the Society as being “schismatic” and to inflict
a new excommunication if Bishop Fellay does not return to the Preamble presented by Rome.
Finally, he invites Bishop Fellay to “consider the serious consequences of the position that [he has] taken, if [he] decides to make it definitive,” to “reconsider” his refusal of the Doctrinal Preamble [DP1], and gave him a one month delay to provide his definitive response.
To tell the truth, Cardinal Levada is right to ask Bishop Fellay to give his opinion on the
“controversial points” which were the cause of the “break” between the Society and Rome about
the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium.
Indeed, these problems had not been mentioned in Bishop Fellay’s DP2.
2. Bishop Fellay’s reaction to Cardinal Levada’s Letter.
From that moment on, Bishop Fellay was torn apart between refusing to go any further, and the
desire to be recognized by Rome.
a. An optimism without foundation: Rome has changed!
Bishop Fellay demonstrated a blissful optimism that appeared in his Editorial in Cor Unum no.
101 in March 2012, which merits a detailed review.
He begins with a retrospective of the events of the past few years, which should discourage any
confidence in Rome.
About the 2009-2011 doctrinal discussions he is quite disillusioned:
The absence of evaluation by Rome on the doctrinal discussions . . . the discussions have ended, it is true, a bit abruptly.
And about the contents of the same discussions, he recognized that a doctrinal agreement with
Rome is impossible:
Our experts have shown well the conflict existing between, on the one hand, the teaching of the Church before the Council and, on the other hand, that of the Second Vatican Council and of its consequences.
Then he mentions Rome’s new propositions (15 September 2011) and the Society’s responses:
So, we have received a proposal [Doctrinal Preamble 1] that tried to make us enter into the scheme of the hermeneutic of continuity. . . the first time, on December 1, and a second time, on January 12; we communicated to Rome the fact that it is impossible for us to sign a docuмent that contains such ambiguities.
Nevertheless, Bishop Fellay seems unable to understand what Rome wants in practice:
pp. 24
The proposal made by that same Congregation: to recognize the Society by granting it a canonical status
of a personal prelature, provided that we sign an ambiguous docuмent, which we spoke about in the last issue
of Cor unum [no. 100]. This is surprising, inasmuch as the discussions manifested a profound disagreement
on almost all the points that were addressed.
“This is surprising”: Bishop Fellay has trouble seeing that if Rome agreed to the Society exposing
its positions during the discussions, but no more, it is because they are simply waiting for a new
phase, for new negotiations with a doctrinal Preamble ready to be signed in view of a juridical
statute.
Then Bp. Fellay exposed a false argument (a sophism) in which he revealed his new strategy
towards Rome.
After having reassured everyone that he is maintaining “the Faith [which is] first and paramount,” he
stated that “the situation in the Church may oblige us to perform acts of prudence in relation and corresponding to
the concrete situation.” In other words, if the “concrete situation” changes in Rome, we must change our attitude towards Rome. (Cor unum, March 2012)
He mentioned what the 2006 Chapter had said regarding future negotiations with Rome:
The Chapter in 2006 set forth a very clear line of conduct in matters concerning our situation with
respect to Rome. We give priority to the faith, without seeking for our part a practical solution before the doctrinal question is resolved. (Cor unum, March 2012)
What is shocking here, is that he calls the sine qua non condition of the 2006 Chapter a simple
“line of conduct,” not a principle, thus eventually modifiable according to circuмstances. And he will
do exactly the contrary of what the 2006 Chapter decided—he was going to look for “a practical
solution before the doctrinal question is resolved”!
But in order to convince the SSPX that we must change our approach towards Rome, he tries to
show that the “concrete situation” in Rome has changed for the better by making when he appeals
to “an historical observation concerning the present situation of the Church.” (Cor unum, March 2012)
So he makes a parallel between the year 2006 (because of the Chapter) and the year 2012 to
attempt to demonstrate that there has been a change in Rome which demands a change in us as well.
He offers as a “proof” of this change some “facts,” of which he himself does seem to be
convinced when uses such expressions as being “not very visible,” “timid,” “thwarted,” “placed under the bushel basket,” “even though their application leaves something to be desired,” etc.
He speaks of a “two opposed, unequal movements [in Rome],” which actually is only a battle between the conservatives and the extremists, but remark that all these people are conciliar!
He is sensitive to flattery by his “new friends in Rome,” and says that “young bishops, some of whom
clearly but discreetly express to us their sympathy . . . It may be in Rome that these things are more manifest! We now
have friendly contacts in the most important Dicasteries, and also in the Pope’s entourage!”
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.<
Recent Posts
