Author Topic: Declaration doctrinale du 15 Avril 2012 (Read 2455 times)

Against the Heresies · « **on:** March 09, 2013, 12:34:26 PM »

DECLARATION DOCTRINALE DU 15 AVRIL 2012 QUE MGR FELLAY AVAIT ENVOYÉE AU CARDINAL LEVADA

DECLARATION DOCTRINALE DU 15 AVRIL 2012 que Mgr Fellay avait envoyée au cardinal Levada

Posted on 9 mars 2013
DECLARATION DOCTRINALE DU 15 AVRIL 2012 QUE MGR FELLAY AVAIT ENVOYÉE AU CARDINAL LEVADA

I

Nous promettons d’être toujours fidèles à l’Eglise catholique et au Pontife romain, son Pasteur suprême, Vicaire du Christ, successeur de Pierre et chef du Corps des évêques.

II

Nous déclarons accepter les enseignements du Magistère de l’Eglise en matière de foi et de morale, en donnant à chaque affirmation doctrinale le degré d’adhésion requis, selon la doctrine contenue dans le nº 25 de la Constitution dogmatique Lumen Gentium du Concile Vatican II (1).

III En particulier :

1 Nous déclarons accepter la doctrine sur le Pontife romain et sur le Collège des évêques, avec son chef, le Pape, enseignée par la Constitution dogmatique Pastor æternus du Concile Vatican I et par la Constitution dogmatique Lumen Gentium du Concile Vatican II, chapitre 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), expliquée et interprétée par la Nota explicativa prævia à ce même chapitre.

2 Nous reconnaissons l’autorité du Magistère auquel seul est confié la tâche d’interpréter authentiquement la Parole de Dieu écrite ou transmise (2) dans la fidélité à la Tradition, se souvenant que « le Saint Esprit n’a pas été promis aux successeurs de Pierre pour qu’ils fassent connaître, sous sa révélation, une nouvelle doctrine, mais pour qu’avec son assistance ils gardent saintement et expriment fidèlement la révélation transmise par les Apôtres, c’est-à-dire le dépôt de la foi » (3).

3 La Tradition est la transmission vivante de la Révélation « usque ad nos » (4) et l’Eglise dans sa doctrine, dans sa vie et dans son culte, perpétue et transmet à toutes les générations ce qu’elle est et tout ce qu’elle croit. La Tradition progresse dans l’Eglise avec l’assistance du Saint Esprit (5), non comme une nouveauté contraire (6) mais par une meilleure compréhension du depositum fidei (7).

4 L’entière Tradition de la foi catholique doit être le critère et le guide de la compréhension des enseignements du Concile Vatican II, lequel à son tour éclaire – c’est-à-dire approfondit et explicite ultérieurement – certains aspects de la vie et de la doctrine de l’Eglise, implicitement présents en elle ou non encore formulés conceptuellement (8).

5 Les affirmations du Concile Vatican II et du Magistère pontifical postérieur relatives à la relation entre l’Eglise catholique et les confessions chrétiennes non-catholiques, ainsi qu’au devoir social de religion et au droit à la liberté religieuse, dont la formulation est difficilement conciliable avec les affirmations doctrinales précédentes du Magistère, doivent être comprises à la lumière de la Tradition entière et ininterrompue, de manière cohérente avec les vérités précédemment enseignées par le Magistère de l’Eglise, sans accepter aucune interprétation de ces affirmations qui puisse porter à exposer la doctrine catholique en opposition ou en rupture avec la Tradition et avec ce Magistère.

6 C’est pourquoi il est légitime de promouvoir par une légitime discussion l’étude et l’explication théologique d’expressions et de formulations du Concile Vatican II et du Magistère qui a suivi, dans le cas où elles ne paraissent pas conciliables avec le Magistère antérieur de l’Eglise (9).

7 Nous déclarons reconnaître la validité du sacrifice de la Messe et des Sacrements célébrés avec l’intention de faire ce que fait l’Eglise selon les rites indiqués dans les éditions typiques du Missel romain et des Rituels des Sacrements légitimement promulgués par les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II.

8 En suivant les critères énoncés ci-dessus (III, 5), ainsi que le canon 21 du Code, nous promettons de respecter la discipline commune de l’Eglise et les lois ecclésiastiques, spécialement celles qui sont contenues dans le Code de droit canonique promulgué par le pape Jean-Paul II (1983) et dans le code de droit canon des Eglises orientales promulgué par le même Pontife (1990), restant sauve la discipline à concéder à la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X par une loi particulière.
—————————————–
On lit en note :–
(1) Cf. aussi la nouvelle formule de la Profession de foi et du Serment de fidélité pour assumer une charge exercée au nom de l’Eglise, 1989 ; cf. CIC cann 749 ; 750, 1et 2 ; 752 ; CCEO cann. 597 ; 598, 1 et 2 ; 599.
(2) Cf. Pie XII, encyclique Humani Generis.
(3) Vatican I, Constitution dogmatique, Pastor aeternus, Dz. 3070.
(4) Concile de Trente, Dz. 1501 : « Toute vérité salutaire et toute règle morale (Mt. XVI, 15) sont contenues dans les livres écrits et dans les traditions non écrites qui, reçues par les Apôtres de la bouche du Christ lui-même ou transmises comme de la main à la main par les Apôtres sous la dictée de l’Esprit Saint, sont parvenues jusqu’à nous. »
(5) Cf. Concile Vatican II, Constitution dogmatique Dei Verbum, 8 et 9, Denz.4209-4210.
(6) Vatican I, Constitution dogmatique Dei Filius, Dz. 3020 : « Aussi doit-on toujours retenir le sens des dogmes sacrés que la sainte Mère l’Eglise a déterminé une fois pour toutes, et ne jamais s’en écarter sous le prétexte et au nom d’une intelligence supérieure de ces dogmes. Croissent donc et se multiplient abondamment, dans chacun comme dans tous, chez tous les hommes aussi bien que dans toute l’Eglise, durant le cours des âges et des siècles, l’intelligence, la science et la sagesse ; mais seulement dans le rang qui leur convient, c’est-à-dire dans l’unité du dogme, de sens et de manière de voir (St. Vincent de Lérins, Commonitorium, 28). »
(7) Vatican I, Constitution dogmatique Dei Filius, Dz. 3011 ; Serment antimoderniste, nº 4 ; Pie XII, Lettre encyclique Humani Generis, Dz 3886 ; Concile Vatican II, Constitution dogmatique Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
(8) Comme par exemple l’enseignement de la sacramentalité de l’épiscopat in Lumen Gentium, nº 21.
(9) On trouve un parallèle dans l’histoire avec le Décret des Arméniens du Concile de Florence, où la porrection des instruments était indiquée comme matière du sacrement de l’Ordre. Néanmoins les théologiens discutèrent légitimement, même après ce décret, sur l’exactitude d’une telle assertion ; finalement la question fut résolue d’une autre façon par le pape Pie XII.

________________________________________________________

Nous attendons avec impatience les explications de la Maison générale à paraître dans le prochain « Cor Unum », promise par l’abbé Thouvenot dans sa lettre circulaire du 7 mars 2013.

Ethelred · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:41:20 PM »

Übersetzung?

:-)

Against the Heresies · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:43:37 PM »

Die kommt hoffentlich noch.

;-)

Ethelred · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:48:51 PM »

Gracias!

;-)

bvmknight · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:55:23 PM »

English please? Somebody?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:59:58 PM »

Google would have a hard time translating that page.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2013, 02:03:03 PM »

dareka yakushite kudasai.
FURANSUgo dekinai kara sa.
omoshiroi da to omou.

PAT317 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2013, 02:10:50 PM »

LOL

Tá mé ag súil é a bheith aistrithe go Béarla go luath.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2013, 02:13:58 PM »

Genesis chapter 11

Quote

[6] And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. [7] Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. [8] And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. [9] And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2013, 02:33:35 PM »

Can't see too much that seems to be much worse than what was leaked before:

Although it says the new rites of the Sacraments not only valid but legitimately promulgated.

It's an ambiguous docuмent in appearance, but in actual fact it gives up the former SSPX position.

Let's face it: that's why Bishop Fellay said the things he said in the interview with CNS.

TheRecusant · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2013, 03:42:49 PM »

Here you go. Please point out any typos, etc.

http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

Quote

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 to the requierd degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.

III In Particular:
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, the chapter (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 make 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 revalation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what it is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the deposit of the Faith.
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.
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 reconcilable with difficultywith 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 a legitimate discussion the study and theological explaining 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.
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.

ancien regime · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:48:42 PM »

Here are the notes:

Quote

Notes--
(1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of the 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 correction of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of the 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.

Machabees · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2013, 05:10:52 PM »

Quote from: TheRecusant

Here you go. Please point out any typos, etc.

http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012

Quote

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 to the requierd degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.

III In Particular:
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, the chapter (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 make 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 revalation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what it is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty, but through a better understanding of the deposit of the Faith.
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.
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 reconcilable with difficulty 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 a legitimate discussion the study and theological explaining 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.
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.

"...by the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II".

Wasn't this a "PASTORAL COUNCIL"...not dogmatic? Someone needs to tell this to Bishop Fellay and company.

"...with the intention to do what the Church does".

Well here is more "bizzaro" and contradiction amongst the leaders of the SSPX.

On sspx.org, an extract of Fr. Regis de Cacqueray's March 2013 District Superior's Letter to Friends and Benefactors has a very different "opinion". Thankfully, it is in line with Archbishop Lefebrve.

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/a_profound_injustice_de_cacqueray_3-5-2013.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an extract from its extract:

(...)

First of all, as far as the New Mass is concerned, we share the very serious conclusion to which Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci came even before the promulgation of this New Mass: "It strays to an impressive degree, on the whole as well as in its details, from the Catholic theology of the holy Mass."[3] The Society remains in the wake of this first show of protestation against the New Mass. It maintains[4] in particular, that the new liturgy makes the propitiatory nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross[5] disappear, and that this voluntary amputation of the liturgy betrays the spirit of His divine oblation. The deepest motive for the Son of God’s coming down to earth to suffer His Passion is erased from the New Mass. He became incarnate to deliver Himself as a victim of expiation and He died on the Cross for our sins, "to appease the Father and make Him favorable to us,"[6] but the New Mass has suppressed this propitiatory object of the Sacrifice, although this was the quintessence of the Catholic spirit.

One must not therefore be surprised when we say that the New Mass, even without the outrageous demeanor to which it so often gives rise in the name of liturgical creativity, and even when it is celebrated by a pious priest, cannot be pleasing to God. Let us not react emotionally to this statement that Archbishop Lefebvre repeated so often; rather let us seek to understand why this objective conclusion cannot be denied.

The new rite no longer expresses the redeeming Sacrifice of our divine Savior as it really happened on the cross, even though its authors pretend, on principle, to have remained faithful on this point. Consequently, this new rite gravely deceives souls who think they are assisting at a Mass that has remained substantially unchanged, while in reality they are faced with a liturgy that has been turned away from its proper end. In name, the new liturgy is said to be Catholic; but its contents are not. Satan’s masterstroke has managed to give to a liturgy closer to the Protestant service of worship than to the Catholic Mass the reputation of being Catholic.

Referred to today as the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, this rite, not satisfied with no longer conveying the Catholic religion, distills a purely human religiosity that scarcely takes the time to mention that man is first of all a poor sinner and that his duty is to fight tirelessly against the three concupiscences in order to obtain his salvation. Far from it, the texts of the New Mass celebrate man and his work on earth. In vain does one look for the ancient prayers, so frequent in the traditional Mass, that invited Catholics to despise the things of earth and consecrate themselves to those of heaven. The New Mass substitutes a horizontal, profane vision for the vertical dimension of our existence.

In reality, the Catholics who continue to practice regularly for their whole lives with the New Mass are rare. It is so desacralized that men who really seek God cannot find Him in it. Many, disgusted, have deserted the reformed sanctuaries because they no longer found there the religion of their childhood. They could no longer bear this exaltation of man in which the Son of God, who died on the Cross to save them, is forgotten. They understood obscurely that this Mass no longer spoke to them of the religion that they had been taught. What was their sin? It is really a question we might ask ourselves. What did they flee? A new religion that wished to impose itself furtively upon their consciences without admitting that it was new. Often these people, who stopped going to Sunday Mass at the time, have kept the faith, while the others, immersed Sunday after Sunday in the new rites, have, alas, become disciples of the conciliar doctrine. New liturgy, new religion!

We condemn the equivocality of this New Mass. It no longer expresses Catholic dogma. It can certainly be understood in a Catholic way by a Catholic, but it can also be understood in a Protestant way by a Protestant. How can this be? Through a subtle alchemy that modifies the words, the gestures and many liturgical signs.

Expressions that are too openly Catholic are almost systematically watered down and replaced by others, vague enough for the Protestants to be able to understand them in their own way as well.

In this way, the symbols that express the dogmas of the sacramental presence, of the renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross, of the priesthood of the priest, have been diminished in number and their precision has been reduced. Henceforth, the purely spiritual presence of Christ among men, the Last Supper, a meal during which the bread was broken and shared, and the role of the assembly that celebrates with the priest are emphasized. It is absolutely astounding, from a historical point of view, to note that all the distortions worked by the artisans of the New Mass are all but identical to those that the Protestant reformers had invented to make the Catholic Mass shift towards the Protestant service of worship.

The New Mass therefore cannot be pleasing to God, since it is deceitful, harmful and equivocal:

It cannot be the object of a law applicable as such to the whole Church. Indeed, the object of liturgical law is to propose with authority the common good of the Church and all that is required for it. As the New Mass of Paul VI represents the deprivation of this good, it cannot be the object of a law; it is not only evil, but also illegitimate, in spite of all the appearances of legality with which it has been and still is surrounded.[7]

We therefore refuse to consider legitimate this evil liturgy that is opposed to the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Instead we denounce the New Mass as illegitimate and illicit. Those who are sanctified while assisting at it are sanctified in spite of it and not through it. One day, it will be forever banished from Catholic sanctuaries.

This is why, in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre, we strongly recommend that our faithful never actively assist at it, even if certain reasons allow them to be present passively. Doubtless, one does not lose the faith after assisting once, and so this is not the essential reason for our opposition to the New Mass. The most profound reason for which we encourage Catholics not to assist at the New Mass is that such a cult can only displease God, and the faithful must evidently never participate in a cult that displeases God, not even to please those dear to them.

(...)

Against the Heresies · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2013, 05:32:16 PM »

German translation:

Lehrmäßige Präambel

I

Wir versprechen der Katholischen Kirche und dem Bischof von Rom, dem Obersten Hirten, dem Stellvertreter Christi, dem Nachfolger des hl. Petrus und Oberhaupt der Gesamtheit der Bischöfe, immer treu zu sein.

II

Wir erklären die Lehren des kirchlichen Lehramts in Fragen des Glaubens und der Sitten anzunehmen und jedem doktrinellen Satz im erforderliche Ausmaß die Zustimmung zu geben, gemäß der Lehre in Nr. 25 der Dogmatischen Konstitution „Lumen gentium“ des II. Vatikanischen Konzils (1)

III Im Einzelnen:

1) Wir erklären die Lehre über den Römischen Bischof und über das Bischofskollegium, mit seinem Haupt, dem Papst, anzunehmen, wie sie gelehrt wird durch die Dogmatische Konstitution „Pastor aeternus“ des I. Vatikanischen Konzils und durch die Dogmatische Konstitution „Lumen gentium“ des II. Vatikanischen Konzils, Kapitel 3 (De constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiæ et in specie de episcopatu), erläutert und interpretiert durch die „Nota explicativa prævia“ zu diesem Kapitel.

2) Wir anerkennen die Autorität des Lehramtes, dem allein die Aufgabe anvertraut ist das geschriebene oder überlieferte Wort Gottes authentisch auszulegen (2) in Treue zur Tradition, sich allein daran erinnernd, daß „der Heilige Geist den Nachfolgern des Petrus nämlich nicht verheißen wurde, damit sie durch seine Offenbarung eine neue Lehre ans Licht brächten, sondern damit sie mit seinem Beistand die durch die Apostel überlieferte Offenbarung bzw. die Hinterlassenschaft des Glaubens heilig bewahrten und getreu auslegten“ (3).

3) Die Tradition ist die lebendige Weitergabe der Offenbarung „usque ad nos“ (4); die Kirche hält sie durch ihre Lehre, durch ihr Leben und durch ihren Kult aufrecht und übermittelt allen Geschlech[php]tern was sie ist und alles was sie glaubt. Die Tradition entwickelt sich in der Kirche unter dem Beistand des Heiligen Geistes (5), nicht wie eine entgegengesetzte Neuerung (6), sondern durch ein besseres Verständnis des depositum fidei (7).

4) Die gesamte Tradition des katholischen Glaubens muß das Kriterium und die Führerin für das Verständnis der Lehren des II. Vatikanischen Konzils sein, das seinerseits gewisse Aspekte des Lebens und der Lehre der Kirche, die einschlußweise in ihrer Mitte präsent oder noch nicht begrifflich formuliert sind, erleuchtet, d.h. vertieft und weiter klärt. (8)

5) Die Aussagen des II. Vatikanischen Konzils und des nachfolgenden päpstlichen Lehramts bezüglich des Verhältnisses zwischen der Katholischen Kirche und den nicht-katholischen christlichen Konfessionen, ebenso bezüglich der sozialen Pflichten der Religion und des Rechts auf Religionsfreiheit, deren Formulierungen schwer mit früheren lehrmäßigen Aussagen des Lehramts in Einklang zu bringen sind, müssen im Lichte der gesamten und ununterbrochenen Tradition verstanden werden, in einer Weise, die mit den früher vom kirchlichen Lehramt gelehrten Wahrheiten kohärent ist, ohne daß dabei eine Interpretation dieser Aussagen akzeptiert würde, die zu einer Auslegung der katholischen Lehre führt, die sich im Gegensatz oder im Bruch mit der Tradition oder diesem Lehramt befindet.

6) Aus diesem Grund ist es gerechtfertigt durch eine legitime Diskussion das Studium und die theologische Erklärung von Ausdrücken und Formulierungen des II. Vatikanischen Konzils und des nachfolgenden Lehramtes in jenen Fällen zu befördern, wo es scheint, daß diese mit dem früheren kirchlichen Lehramt nicht in Übereinstimmung gebracht werden können (9).

7) Wir erklären die Gültigkeit des Meßopfers und der Sakramente anzuerkennen, die mit der Absicht gefeiert werden zu tun, was die Kirche tut und gemäß den Riten, wie sie in den typischen Ausgaben des Römischen Meßbuchs und des Rituales für die Sakramente – rechtmäßig promulgiert von den Päpsten Paul VI. und Johannes Paul II. – angegeben sind.

8) Indem wir den oben aufgestellten Kriterien (III, 5), sowie dem Kanon 21 des Gesetzbuches folgen, versprechen wir die allgemeine Disziplin der Kirche und die kirchlichen Gesetze zu achten, besonders jene, die im Kirchlichen Gesetzbuch, das von Papst Johannes Paul II. (1983) promulgiert wurde und im Kirchlichen Gesetzbuch für die Ostkirchen, das vom selben Papst (1990) promulgiert wurde, enthalten sind, unbeschadet des Rechts auf eine Disziplin, die der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. durch ein Partikulargesetz zugestanden wird.

---------------------------------------

Fußnoten:

(1) Vgl. auch die neue Formel des Glaubensbekenntnisses und des Treueeids bei der Übernahme eines kirchlichen Amtes, 1989; vgl. CIC cann. 749; 750, 1 und 2; CCEO cann. 597; 598, 1 und 2; 599.

(2) Vgl. Pius XII., Enzyklika „Humani generis“.

(3) I. Vatikanum, Dogmatische Konstitution „Pastor aeternus“, DH 3070.

(4) Konzil von Trient, DH 1501: „und erkennend, daß diese Wahrheit und Lehre in geschriebenen Büchern und ungeschriebenen Überlieferungen enthalten sind, die, von den Aposteln aus dem Munde Christi selbst empfangen oder von den Aposteln selbst auf Diktat des Heiligen Geistes gleichsam von Hand zu Hand weitergegeben, bis auf uns gekommen sind.“

(5) Vgl. II. Vatikanisches Konzil, Dogmatische Konstitution „Dei verbum“, 8 und 9, DH 4209-4210.

(6) I. Vatikanum, Dogmatische Konstitution „Dei Filius“, DH 3020: „Daher ist auch immerdar derjenige Sinn der heiligen Glaubenssätze beizubehalten, den die heilige Mutter Kirche einmal erklärt hat, und niemals von diesem Sinn unter dem Anschein und Namen einer höheren Einsicht abzuweichen [Kan. 3]. »So wachse denn und gedeihe in reichem und starkem Maße im Laufe der Zeiten und Jahrhunderte Erkenntnis, Wissenschaft und Weisheit sowohl in jedem als auch in allen, sowohl im einzelnen Menschen als auch in der ganzen Kirche: aber lediglich in der ihnen zukommenden Weise, nämlich in derselben Lehre, demselben Sinn und derselben Auffassung« (Vinzenz von Lérins, Commonitorium primum 23, n.3).

(7) I. Vatikanum, Dogmatische Konstitution „Dei Filius“, DH 3011; Antimodernisteneid, Nr.4; Pius XII., Enzyklika „Humani generis“, DH 3886; II. Vatikanisches Konzil, Dogmatische Konstitution „Dei verbum“, 10, DH 4213.

(8) Wie zum Beispiel die Lehre von der Sakramentalität des Episkopats in „Lumen gentium“ Nr. 21.

(9) Es gibt eine Parallele in der Geschichte mit dem Armenierdekret des Konzils von Florenz, wo die Darreichung der Instrumente als Materie des Weihesakraments angegeben wird. Nichtsdestotrotz diskutierten die Theologen legitimerweise, auch nach diesem Dekret, die Stimmigkeit einer solchen Behauptung; schließlich wurde die Frage von Papst Pius XII. in einer anderen Weise gelöst.

Against the Heresies · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2013, 06:07:45 PM »

Quote from: Doctrinal preamble

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.

Interview with Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 2009:

Quote

Rather than read Vatican II in light of Tradition, we really should read and interpret Vatican II in light of the new philosophy. We must read and understand the Council in its real meaning, that is to say, according to the new philosophy. Because all these theologians who produced the texts of Vatican II were imbued with the new philosophy. We must read it this way, not to accept it, but to understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the docuмents understand it. To read Vatican II in light of Tradition is not to read it correctly. It means to bend, to twist the texts. I do not want to twist the texts.

(Source)