Also Posted by Shamus on IA:




In the same Cor Unum, the priests of the SSPX can read Bishop Fellay’s 17th June 2012 letter to Benedict XVI. In it we learn that Bishop Fellay wrote his "doctrinal declaration of 15th April" in order to set aside the difficulties of the September 2011 preamble. Bishop Fellay fully assumes his scandalous doctrinal declaration. But there’s worse still. The doctrinal declaration was amended on 13th June by the Romans who explicitly reintroduced the unacceptable points that Bishop Fellay had "endeavored to set aside" - but not to correct – in order to reach an agreement. The Superior General goes on to explain to Benedict XVI the following:

  "Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church. "
    Bishop Fellay

On the 30th June 2012, Benedict XVI responded, as we know, that all three conditions come from him (Magisterium, Vatican II, Novus Ordo Missae) and concluded:

  "At this moment as the General Chapter of your Society opens, I can only encourage the assembly to accept these points as necessary for reconciliation within the communion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

But wait - has the actual Cor Unum been leaked yet, or not?

On the one hand we Resistance are called revolutionaries, calumniators, liars, etc.

And on the other hand, docuмents like this prove us right.

Yet the Menzingen/Kansas City propaganda machine doesn't miss a beat.

It fears not to have it's own contradictions held up to them.

Loyalty to the corporation comes before all else.

For them, the principle of non-contradiction no longer applies or exists.

Once that happens, the hermeneutic of continuity no longer disturbs the conscience.

It is flabbergasting to have docuмents leaked which consistently vindicate us, yet no signs of shame or embarrassment from the revolutionaries in Menzingen/Kansas City.

As Bishop Williamson said, "The crisis in the SSPX resembles in all aspects the crisis in the Church after Vatican 2," one of the striking features of which was being told by the modernists that Vatican 2 didn't change anything.

You could hold up the Syllabus of Piux IX in one hand, and DH in the other, and they look at you like, "What's the problem?"

Same thing here: You can hold up contradictory statements of Bishop Fellay, or the signed sellout which admits Vatican II to be implicitly contained within tradition, and get the same quizzical look.

Or, "resistance to what?"

The corporation has become more important to her members than the apostolate it was designed to accomplish.

Also Posted by Shamus on IA:

In the same Cor Unum, the priests of the SSPX can read Bishop Fellay’s 17th June 2012 letter to Benedict XVI. In it we learn that Bishop Fellay wrote his "doctrinal declaration of 15th April" in order to set aside the difficulties of the September 2011 preamble. Bishop Fellay fully assumes his scandalous doctrinal declaration. But there’s worse still. The doctrinal declaration was amended on 13th June by the Romans who explicitly reintroduced the unacceptable points that Bishop Fellay had "endeavored to set aside" - but not to correct – in order to reach an agreement. The Superior General goes on to explain to Benedict XVI the following:

  "Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church. "
    Bishop Fellay

On the 30th June 2012, Benedict XVI responded, as we know, that all three conditions come from him (Magisterium, Vatican II, Novus Ordo Missae) and concluded:

  "At this moment as the General Chapter of your Society opens, I can only encourage the assembly to accept these points as necessary for reconciliation within the communion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

Wow...on one hand what a surprise of malicious deception of the part of Menzingen, and Kansas City, for what they try to do and to cover up.  However, on the other hand, of all of the research and docuмentation that the Resistance has compiled -all directions- had led to this conclusion.

God's Truth is stronger than deceit!

From Hollingsworth at IA:


QUOTE  
  "Unfortunately, in the current context of the Society, the new declaration will not be accepted. [...] I am committed to this perspective [practical agreement without doctrinal agreement] despite the fairly strong opposition in the ranks of the Society and at the price of substantial disruption. And I fully intend to continue to do my best to pursue this path to reach the necessary clarifications. [...] May Your Holiness deign to believe my filial devotion and my dearest wish to serve the Church. "
    Bishop Fellay



One might paraphrase Bp. Fellay's remarks by resorting to semi-street vernacular:
Unfortunately, Your Holiness, my people really have their antennae up now. They're not going to go for the declaration as presently worded. Please just work with me, and we'll find the, ah, practical solution which we both seek. You know I'm with you. But we need to tiptoe gingerly. In the end I'll bring most of my confreres along with me. Trust me. Right now we're facing some pretty tough opposition in the ranks. Please bear with us, Holy Father. Otherwise, we'll have a lot of unnecessary disruption. I think this can all be avoided. Right now we just need to be patient and to keep our powder dry.
You pal,
BF

Quote from: Matthew

This is an absolute bombshell, Sean.

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops -- how convenient that tomorrow is Sunday! This needs to be spread to all our fellow-parishioners at SSPX chapels tomorrow.

Nuclear.

I would think there would have been alot more discussion about this here and at IA, which I checked to see if someone had posted the whole Cor Unum there, but few people seem to be interested enough to post so far. Surprising.

I am a bit surprised that Bishop Fellay would make these admissions to all his SSPX priests in the Cor Unum.

He is effectively announcing to all of them that he is committed to betraying them; that he will remain committed to doing so; that the Resistance is right; etc.

Anyone have any ideas on why Bishop Fellay would publish a self-incriminating letter to the Pope in the Cor Unum that is so damning as to almost cause one to question its authenticity?

I am a bit surprised that Bishop Fellay would make these admissions to all his SSPX priests in the Cor Unum.

He is effectively announcing to all of them that he is committed to betraying them; that he will remain committed to doing so; that the Resistance is right; etc.

Anyone have any ideas on why Bishop Fellay would publish a self-incriminating letter to the Pope in the Cor Unum that is so damning as to almost cause one to question its authenticity?

Unless there has been a repudiation of this position?

If so, I have not seen it anywhere.

Perhaps he considers this position was itself repudiated at the General Chapter (But that same Chapter produced a declaration which allowed for a merely practical accord, and 6 conditions to facilitate it!).

Very confused by this statement.