Doctrinal Declaration - Doctrinal Preamble - April 15th Declaration by Bishop Fellay and the headquarters of the Society of St. Pius X
AFD - April Fifteenth Declaration

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

I  
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

   1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

   2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

   3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

   4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit -  certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).

   5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

   6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

    7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

   8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be 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.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome
15th April, 2012

I  
We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.


II
We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)


III

     1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.

     2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)

     3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).

     4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit -  certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).

     5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.

     6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).

      7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.

     8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.


Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.

(2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.

(3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.

(4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: “All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.”

(5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.

(6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be 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.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].”

(7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.

(8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.

(9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way.

Thanks for the reminder!  It's a good idea to constantly reread and remind ourselves of the facts.  One of the reasons that the SSPX is in so much trouble at the moment is that the laity (and the priests! :shocked:) don't keep themselves informed of the facts, don't read and think about things.  The majority of SSPX clergy and laity are calmly drifting through life as if their is no crisis in the Church, in the world and even in the SSPX.  There are too many Sunday Catholics in Tradition who just want a convenient weekly Mass and are not willing to make sacrifices for the faith.  I often thought that those who lived through Vatican II and were able to spot the errors the first time around would never fall for them the second time round.  I often thought that those raised in Tradition would recognise the errors of Modernism and Liberalism if they ever reared their ugly heads in the SSPX.  I thought that the SSPX could never possibly make the same mistakes as the Fraternity of St Peter and many other orders who made practical deals with Rome, especially as they had so many examples of the treachery of the Roman authorities towards the traditionally minded orders.  But yet that is what is happening.  And why? Because people aren't reading and using their brains! Prayer is the most important solution of course - but reading will definitely help! Read, read, read!!! Please!  

This should be the standard rebuke to the loyalist partisan. This is  objectively, nothing less than a full surrender to conciliarism.
It was this docuмent, and Bishop Fellay's inane defense of it, that fully woke me up to that reality.
This is his thinking, and that of his entire administration. They will remain in control for an indeterminate period of time, and perhaps permanently, so there is no future in allying oneself with them.
They are, in the practical sense, gone. And insofar as the resistance so called is still shadowing their footprints, they are no option either.
2012 was the turning point.
Only the ignorant and self-deluded fail to see this.

what about those of us who are stuck and reluctantly go to sspx on sundays because one spouse sees things differently, should we not put money in the basket to contribute ? I'm not sur emy priest would agree with Fellay's statement, I'll ask him.

Someone asked me for it, and I had to dig it up. Just a "back to basics" post, to remember what the Resistance is all about.

Come on Lad, I didn't take you to be the autistic type. The neo-SSPX already made a deal with the world much like Rome did in the 1960's. The reason they aren't "officially" in is due to the Neo-Vatican, not Menzingen, pulling the plug on the deal (2012 & 2017), allowing the SSPX to fool those who lack perception.  

.
This THING ought to be pinned at the head of the forum because it's that important!!
.
Just a few weeks ago I had a conversation with a fellow Trad who is very much okay with what's up in the SSPX, and I was having a hard time believing what I heard him say. So I asked if he agreed with a couple of the points of the 2012 AFD (Fr. Chazal's favorite name for it, and I agree with him!), and he had no idea what I was talking about. I had to recall ALL THE VARIOUS TITLES and repeat them to him (April Fifteenth Declaration, Doctrinal Preamble, Doctrinal Declaration). He stared blankly at me in disbelief as if he had never realized that there had been a gaggle of titles for the same docuмent (Note: this historical FACT is evidence that there was a degree of deception attached to it from the beginning!) and at first he doubted that there ever had BEEN any such docuмent. I had to drag him through the whole history of the thing before he began to recall that +Fellay had ever produced any such a thing. It was all too much like talking to a flat-earther about objective reality!! So don't think it's useless to have such discussions with nay-sayers. We need the practice!
.
I started to tell him the story of how it was quietly circulated at first, MONTHS after it had been turned over to Rome, and how Fr. David Hewko, SSPX (he'd never heard of Fr. Hewko!), had first read it in his hotel room in France where he had pulled off his shoes and was caring for the blisters on his feet from walking the pilgrimage there, when he held the AFD for the first time and was just peacefully reading as if it was going to be just another one of those circulars from Menzingen like he was used to reading, when he stopped, and realized, "Wait a minute! This THING is different! This is not like the other Cor Unums I have seen in the past..." I started to explain this important history and my friend lost interest and tried to change the subject! He didn't want to recognize that the AFD might be subtly suspect, or that it would require special attention. It's as though any HINT of criticism of +Fellay's actions is proximate to offensive to pious ears! I asked him if he had ever heard of Fr. Patrick Girouard, who had to escape UNDER DISGUISE from the SSPX in Canada to go set up an independent Chapel in Vancouver. He said, "No," and wasn't interested. He had other things to think about.
.
If that isn't bad enough, at the very end, once he realized there had been an AFD (but he had never heard that name for it! it was like, "oh, that one letter where he was communicating with Rome about future plans for the Society, yeah, that was no big deal...") he ultimately took issue with me on its contents and dug in his heels. He said that the SSPX would never make concessions on a doctrinal level with Rome, and that I must have my facts mixed up. Remember, this is a man who has contempt for Vat.II. Then I asked him if he recalls the history of GREC (Groupe de Réflexion Entre Catholiques -- you've got to have your vocabulary DOWN PAT!) ; and it was back to square one. He reverted to denying there had ever been any GREC and that I must be really confused. He wanted to know where I got my information, and I told him there are numerous websites with all this information, which is verifiable using any search engine, and that's when he lost it!
.
He said, "OH, so YOU believe all the INTERNET RUMOURS!"
.
This is what we're up against. The Internet is a wonderful resource but some people think that if it's not to be found online then it isn't real, and others (reactionaries to this phenomenon) say that everything online is not to be believed!
.
My recommendation is to obtain a physical copy of every important docuмent you can, and this is one of them, and then you can say that you read it in a reliable copy, and offer them to see it. DO NOT MENTION THE INTERNET!! Tell them that next week or whenever it is you'll see them again, that you'll bring a copy and they can read it for themselves. We have to be so diligent because this is important stuff. It is happening NOW, and we can't let history slip through our fingers.
.
Here's a sobering thought: Centuries ago, you'd be showing someone a HANDWRITTEN DOcuмENT and they would be obliged to grant it credibility because EVERY docuмent was handwritten. Would they believe you today if you showed them something handwritten? NO WAY. There was a time, say 50 years ago, when showing them a periodical or a magazine or a Church bulletin or some page run off on a mimiograph machine (precursor to Xerox) it would be respectable. But no more! Today, Anyone Can Run Off Copy Using a Printer/Computer. So it's a matter of presentation. You have to be somehow convincing in HOW you say what you have to say, while you show them the printed copy, preferably from an official bulletin or book, with a verifiable publisher, such as Angelus Press.
.
Matthew here says, "I had to dig it up." That means it was on the verge of being forgotten, or at least it's not at the ready for quick access and reference!
.

.
Very good, thank you.
.
What other docuмents do you suggest we print out and have on hand?
.
Would you make a new thread for that for the ignorant or lazy of us, including copies or links to copies of the docuмents you recommend?
.

.
Here's a sobering thought: Centuries ago, you'd be showing someone a HANDWRITTEN DOcuмENT and they would be obliged to grant it credibility because EVERY docuмent was handwritten. Would they believe you today if you showed them something handwritten? NO WAY. There was a time, say 50 years ago, when showing them a periodical or a magazine or a Church bulletin or some page run off on a mimiograph machine (precursor to Xerox) it would be respectable. But no more! Today, Anyone Can Run Off Copy Using a Printer/Computer. So it's a matter of presentation. You have to be somehow convincing in HOW you say what you have to say, while you show them the printed copy, preferably from an official bulletin or book, with a verifiable publisher, such as Angelus Press.
.
Matthew here says, "I had to dig it up." That means it was on the verge of being forgotten, or at least it's not at the ready for quick access and reference!
.

Man, that brought back memories of the 3rd grade, the smell of that purple mimio ink.  Thanks for th good memory