Dear Maccabees,
You ask me:
"Does this Docuмent [another one] finally answer your question?
"Once again, and again, again, and again, our statements are validated that Bishop Fellay had COMPROMISED the Catholic Faith?"
Well, no.
Bishop Fellay was not compromising the faith in the April 15 declaration.
His statements on the matter (see your own remarks below) have made that quite clear. He was trying to convince the Vatican that the Society is not effectively SVist, while making clear the basic nature of the Society's commitment to tradition.
As regards the Vatican, it was all academic; the Pope abandoned a no doctrinal compromise regularization, and that was that.
The effect on the opponents of Bishop Fellay’s pursuit of a no doctrinal compromise was another story, although not quite the one that you and your source tell.
"Father de Jorna (Rector of the seminary at Econe, Switzerland) proves that Bishop Fellay’s “Doctrinal Declaration “ of April 2012 amounts to the “hermeneutic of continuity”' of Benedict XVI."
Fr. de Jorna said that the declaration was ambiguous; that it sinned by omission (a curious statement for an eminent theologian: docuмents do not sin). He did not say that it amounted to the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.
Are Fr. Pagliarani's remarks are on the record, or are they hearsay? I ask because the “slap in the face” remarks seem rather undiplomatic, since +Fellay was presumably among those listening to Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation.
On the other hand, Fr. Pagliarini’s further remark that the official chapter declaration would eliminate any ambiguity seems the logical thing to say, particularly since at that point not many people even knew that the April 15 declaration existed. If memory serves, it was some months before the Resistance got around to leaking it; or may it wasn’t until the SSPX started distributing the dossier on the events of 2011-12 in Cor Unum.
"The “resistants” were out-manoeuvred. They could not move on to the next phase which would have been the call for Bishop Fellay’s resignation."
Do you have evidence that any such thing was in anyone's mind? And if it was, that Fr. Pagliarani's remarks would have "out-manoeuvred" them? He was just another capitulant.
"The Chapter participants were led to believe that the Declaration was withdrawn with an implicit disapproval of its author. Bishop Tissier was deceived like the others. In a letter, dated 29 March 2013, he said it was "tacitly concluded that there was no need to dwell on this subject, as it was obvious that the Superior General regretted his “faux pas” and was resolved not to do it again."(Official Bulletin of the French District [destined for priests] No. 251, Annex to the Circular Letter No. 2013-04)".
Led to believe by whom? +Fellay was there, and apparently said nothing, and was asked nothing. So “deceived” doesn’t seem the appropriate word.
“The Chapter concluded that Bishop Fellay had understood the intrinsic evil of the Declaration and that he tacitly disapproved of his thoughts.”
Says who? Does your source read (multiple) minds?
“However, since the Chapter, Bishop Fellay has continued to defend the contents of his statement. To do this, he has abused the oath of the Chapter. Bishop Fellay thought that, since the members had promised to remain silent, no one would dare to contradict the official version of the General House.”
I beg your pardon? Fr. de Jorna’s denunciation is in the official version; so is Bishop Tissier’s letter. This was all published with the approval of the Superior General. What isn’t disclosed are the heremeneutics of the author of the piece you are relying on, and he wasn’t at the Chapter.
“This “official version” presents the doctrinal statement as a "minimalist text which could lead to confusion among us" ( Bishop Fellay , Cor Unum 102); or, a " sufficiently clear text " ( Bishop Fellay, Écône , 7 September 2012) . A doctrinal statement in which "any ambiguity was avoided on our judgment of the Council, including the famous hermeneutic of continuity. A Declaration which "was not understood by many prominent members of the Society, who saw ambiguity or a rallying to the thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity." ( Bishop Fellay , Cor unum 104, Note on the doctrinal statement of 15 April 2012).”
This, indeed, is what +Fellay has been saying right along.
“If Bishop Fellay considered his text to be unambiguous, why did he not answer the presentation of Fr de Jorna ? Why didn’t he help, during the Chapter, the "prominent members of the Society” to understand his statement?”
“Why allow Fr Pagliarani to spring to his defence in order to prevent “a slap in the face" and to focus on "an implicit withdrawal," and afterwards to claim that his statement was too subtle, no longer useful but basically sound.”
The possibility of regularization was by then as dead as a doornail. Fr. de Jorna had his say, and let it go at that. If there was going to be a split over the April 15 declaration, the only public critic of the declaration at the Chapter showed no inclination to start it. Neither did two-thirds of the authors of the letter of the three bishops. To anyone with experience in exercising authority, this was clearly a time to keep silent about the past, and work on the future. That is what +Fellay did.
I would suggest that whatever the future brings, it will not bring something like the April 15 declaration, because it will not bring something like six months or so of the Society’s listening to one thing from the Pope, and something else from the CDF.
I continue to believe that in this whole mess, it was +Fellay who wore the mantle of ABL. Leaders must lead, and leadership involves judgment calls. Those not in authority in the SSPX, including bishops and seminary directors, must follow. It is to be noted that +Tissier said this in as many words, and I would guess that Fr. de Jorna is of the same mind.
John Anthony,
I think I found a way to express what so many of us have been laboring to bring you to see within the "dark room" you are in.
In your nature, as a secular Lawyer, you take a "case" and break it down into "microns", and then you pick and choose your "microns" and build "your" defense.
Lets make an example.
There is a poisoned cake. The cake has poison in it. The poison is identified. Everyone knows what the injected poison is. That is sufficient; you cannot eat it.
What you do is. You acknowledge that there is a cake. In beginning to build your "case" to defend against it being poisoned, you call the known poison "alleged". Then you take that known poison that was identified and break that poison down to is many components and microns. From there, you build your "case" by taking only "parts" of those microns in its fundamental components, and then say those parts of the "microns" within themselves are NOT poison.
So, with a very l-o-n-g bridge of its missing links, you jump back over to the real poison, and say with a "micro-theory" that it is NOT POISON.
That is what the Menzingen administration has been doing for over a year in its "style" of putting out fires with those type of "micron-theorys"; like Fr. Themman's conference freshly comes to mind.
John Anthony. The nature of poison in its formed state
IS poison. You cannot take a bite of a cake, and in your mouth "separate" the microns of that poison to make it "digestible". It is still poison; that is the nature of what it is.
Here are two examples (from many) of the n-sspx "micron-theory".
First example:
The new mass is "Legitimately Promulgated" (Bishop' Fellay's April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration). Fact, to the author, with everything else surrounding it, the new mass is Legitimate. Fact, when caught red handed with modernist speak, the "micron-theory" comes out to say:
Legitimate is legitimate. Promulgated is to promulgate. But it takes an "Authority" to "promulgate" it. So "micron-theory" builds it back to say: the Author meant "Legitimately authorized to Promulgated". :rolleyes:
Example two:
One of your own from above.
Fr. de Jorna said that the declaration was ambiguous; that it sinned by omission (a curious statement for an eminent theologian: docuмents do not sin). He did not say that it amounted to the hermeneutic of reform and continuity.
Here is another "micron-theory". You break the
Declaration down into micron parts. There is an Author of the Declaration. The Declaration is ambiguous (and more). The Declaration is a "Docuмent". The Docuмent is a piece of paper with ink on it. It came from a computer. (etc...). There is a Fr. de Jorna. He is an eminent theologian. He stated that the Declaration was ambiguous. He also stated that the [
Declaration] sinned by omission.
Now you use your fancy secular Lawyer "micron-theory" to "defend" the author by only adding back parts of those microns; while discarding the rest to result in no poison.
Here you go... You replace Fr. de Jorna's word of
Declaration; to the paper of a "docuмent". Next, in your choice of using the isolated micron of a docuмent, you deduce that "paper", docuмent (by itself) does not sin. You bridge it back "empty" of the rest of its natural components; result for you, since a paper docuмent cannot sin, there is NO poison in the Declaration. :rolleyes:
When an honest approach in its nature is, a Declaration is the thoughts DECLARED by an author. That Declaration went onto a paper docuмent; signed; and sent out to execute the authors will. The Declaration, as Fr. de Jorna's stated, is ambiguous (and more); that it, the Declaration, not docuмent as you would like to micron it, sinned by omission.
Conclusion, the thoughts of the Author that created that Declaration was ambiguous; and that [it], the Declaration being the internal thoughts of the author, sinned by omission. As an eminent theologian knows, it is only people that can sin; not paper as you would have it.
Please John Anthony. Not only do you, and Menzingen, not play fairly, you both perverse the nature of the things; you add to the crisis. Desist.
I pray that you both will have the humility to look up at the Majesty of God and see that His Church suffers.
By both of you stopping your antics, it will help much for this crisis to go away; like in the same desire for the bigger picture with conciliar Rome.
With prayers...
Topic: Bishop Fellay bombarded in his bunker at the Chapter (Read 5486 times)