Author Topic: Doctrinal Declaration, Was it withdrawn? (Read 5264 times)

John Grace · « **on:** June 05, 2013, 09:46:49 AM »

Judith asks a very good question

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12488

Quote

In his response to Letter of Entreaty , Fr Morgan states;

QUOTE
Ignoring the fact that there has not been a false deal with modernist Rome, and in spite of Bishop Fellay's public withdrawal in Ireland of the questionable April 2012 ‘Doctrinal Declaration,’ the dialectical letter pretends there is no option for us now but to show true leadership and to follow its proponents in seceding from the Society!

Judith
Quote
If this withdrawal is truly public, should it not have been announced somewhere a bit more public than a room in Ireland? Perhaps Dici or sspx.org or announced at all mass centres throughout the world?

A private meeting is not a public withdrawal. It has not been withdrawn. There will need to be a public statement on DICI etc etc and mentioned from pulpits in chapels.

John Grace · « **Reply #1 on:** June 05, 2013, 09:50:05 AM »

A good comment from hollingsworth

Quote

I think this has been asked before, but I'll ask it again: Are Bp. Fellay's comments in Ireland about this alleged "public withdrawal" from the Doctrinal Declaration on the public record? Is there a recording of any talk he made there in which this withdrawal was made?
Quote

John Grace · « **Reply #2 on:** June 05, 2013, 09:51:10 AM »

'Cassini' mentioned a recording was made in Dublin. Is it possible to hear this?

TheRecusant · « **Reply #3 on:** June 05, 2013, 10:54:20 AM »

True. What's more, it is not enough simply to say "I've withdrawn it."

1. Telling people that you've 'withdrawn it' doesn't make it so.

2. Why does he insist on using that particular word, "withdrawn"...? One can withdraw an offer. One cannot "withdraw" a belief or a doctrine. The title of the docuмent was "Doctrinal Declaration", not "Practical Agreement Offer".

3. But even leaving that to one side, which parts specifically does he 'withdraw'? Some bits in it are true and good. The part which says that we recognise that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, for example - does he withdraw that too? He needs to specify, otherwise his words don't signify.

The whole thing is meaningless, and we really ought to regard it as an insult to our intelligence that Bishop Fellay would present us with such a facile 'explanation' for so scandalous a docuмent and still expect to be let off the hook!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2013, 01:13:30 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Judith asks a very good question

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12488
Quote from: someone on IA
In his response to Letter of Entreaty , Fr Morgan states;

QUOTE
Ignoring the fact that there has not been a false deal with modernist Rome, and in spite of Bishop Fellay's public withdrawal in Ireland of the questionable April 2012 ‘Doctrinal Declaration,’ the dialectical letter pretends there is no option for us now but to show true leadership and to follow its proponents in seceding from the Society!

Judith
Quote from: Judith
If this withdrawal is truly public, should it not have been announced somewhere a bit more public than a room in Ireland? Perhaps Dici or sspx.org or announced at all mass centres throughout the world?

A private meeting is not a public withdrawal. It has not been withdrawn. There will need to be a public statement on DICI etc etc and mentioned from pulpits in chapels.

What's really funny is, he was relying on his Easter Cor Unum and
his footnote commentary on a linked explanation of the 'context' to
make his announcement -- which he didn't bother to mention until
the last paragraph of the page, of the linked footnote, of the internal
bulletin, which priests are punished for publicizing.

But apparently he realized the Irish aren't going to go for that nonsense.

God bless the Irish! Erin Go Bragh!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2013, 01:28:08 PM »

Judith is a wonderful poster.

Unlike the supporters of Zionism, crypto-conciliarism and liberalism on that board, who are by and large fake Catholics!

Machabees · « **Reply #6 on:** June 06, 2013, 02:29:45 AM »

In Bishop Fellay's letter (of mush jargon) to his SSPX priests: "Note Regarding the Doctrinal Declaration" (Cor Unum, Easter 2013), he also wrote this in his last paragraph:

"After sending to Rome the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th August 2012, and I informed him [verbally, NOT by official letter. - ed.] that I was withdrawing our April proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work. There remains the Doctrinal Preamble of 14th September, 2011, whose substance was taken up again on 13th June, 2012, and our double response: the letters of 30th November, 2011 and 12th January 2012 on the one hand; on the other, the 14th July 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter with the conditions required for any canonical recognition.

+Bernard Fellay."

http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** June 06, 2013, 05:03:52 PM »

Quote from: Machabees

In Bishop Fellay's letter (of mush jargon) to his SSPX priests: "Note Regarding the Doctrinal Declaration" (Cor Unum, Easter 2013), he also wrote this in his last paragraph:

"After sending to Rome the texts of the General Chapter of last July, I met Mgr. Di Noia on 28th August 2012, and I informed him [verbally, NOT by official letter. - ed.] that I was withdrawing our April proposal, which could no longer serve as a basis from which to work. There remains the Doctrinal Preamble of 14th September, 2011, whose substance was taken up again on 13th June, 2012, and our double response: the letters of 30th November, 2011 and 12th January 2012 on the one hand; on the other, the 14th July 2012 Declaration of the General Chapter with the conditions required for any canonical recognition.

+Bernard Fellay."

http://www.therecusant.com/fellay-note-cor-unum-mar2013

Machabees, you say, "he also wrote..."

That bolded part of his last paragraph was THE WHOLE POINT of the Easter
Cor Unum! So how did he deal it out? Not in the Cor Unum, no, that would
be 'too obvious.' He put it in an 'attachment' or another docuмent. He put
it in the "Note Regarding the Doctrinal Declaration" (Cor Unum, Easter 2013).

And then was it in the first paragraph? No.
Was it in the second paragraph? No.
Was it in the third paragraph? No. ..........

....... It was in paragraph number eleven. . . . . . <<----(that's a link!)

In paragraph number 11 of a separate docuмent, referred to in the
Cor Unum as the 'explanatory note,' or, as +Fellay refers to it, the
"introductory text ... so you can put [my AFD] in context" --

"Concerning the text of the Doctrinal Declaration which caused so
much turbulence of soul last year, I refer you to the introductory
text which I drafted, so that you can put it in context" --

..he placed these words at the very end of the core body of his
Easter Cor Unum, just before the three asterisks and the concluding
words that begin, "For the present, let’s look to the future, our souls
serene ounce again. Providence is good, Providence which has
permitted us to consecrate our Society to St. Joseph precisely at
the moment when the new Pope inaugurated his Pontificate..."

That would be precisely at the moment the new Pope was kissing the
Argentine Jєωess who ran +Williamson out of her country, Kirchner.

Therefore, in paragraph 11 of a separate docuмent, mentioned at the
very end of his Cor Unum message body: it's all buried as deep as he
would dare try to bury it -- at the end of the attachment
mentioned at the end of an internal bulletin, the Easter Cor Unum.

IOW --

He did not want to say this,
but he really had to.

Never mind the declarations, the sermons and the conferences all
designed to affirm the contrary, even though it is a LIE.

He put it off as long as he could! He tried so hard to hide it, to be sneaky.

He made it so you have to look with a magnifying glass to find it.

NOW, YOU'RE READY TO READ THE END OF B. FELLAY'S FOURTH
PARAGRAPH OF HIS EASTER COR UNUM!

"Never mind the declarations, the sermons and the conferences which affirm the contrary, we’re going to look with a magnifying glass anything which we can misunderstand, in order, in an incredible process of intention, to discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky. It’s a real enterprise of subversion, which sows mistrust among priests and laity, and destabilises the government of our society with a view to weakening it or killing it."

In the typical manner of Liberals, when he accuses his opposition, the
Resistance, +Fellay uses language that better defines his own actions.

How to read this:

Fellay ignores the declarations of the good priests like Frs. Pfeiffer,
Hewko, Chazal, Girouard, Cardozo and Dom Tomas Aquino, among
others. He ignores their sermons and their conferences that they have
made public on YouTube and MP3 that expose his own lies and
self-incrimination. He denounces their work of exposing his nefarious
actions by saying they use "a magnifying glass" to see anything they
can "misunderstand!" This, as B. Fellay proceeds to misunderstand
THEM, and he does so deliberately, with an incredible process of
intention -- just like his intentional subversion of the Society that
he has been engaged in for the past 19 years, for the entirety of his
office as SG. Fellay's is a real enterprise of subversion, which sows
mistrust among priests and laity, and it destabilizes the government of
the SSPX with a view to turning it over wholesale to modernist Rome
by means of a dirty 'deal' or else, failing that, then with a perverse
desire to weaken or kill it.

Machabees · « **Reply #8 on:** June 06, 2013, 05:57:14 PM »

Yes good point Neil.

Bishop Fellay does leave another "elephant" in the room to give the "appearance", with his ambiguous language, that he [verbally] withdrawn his Doctrinal Declaration.

Adding the words from others here:

TheRecusant said,

Quote

True. What's more, it is not enough simply to say "I've withdrawn it."

1. Telling people that you've 'withdrawn it' doesn't make it so.

2. Why does he insist on using that particular word, "withdrawn"...? One can withdraw an offer. One cannot "withdraw" a belief or a doctrine. The title of the docuмent was "Doctrinal Declaration", not "Practical Agreement Offer".

3. But even leaving that to one side, which parts specifically does he 'withdraw'? Some bits in it are true and good. The part which says that we recognise that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, for example - does he withdraw that too? He needs to specify, otherwise his words don't signify.

The whole thing is meaningless, and we really ought to regard it as an insult to our intelligence that Bishop Fellay would present us with such a facile 'explanation' for so scandalous a docuмent and still expect to be let off the hook!

Judith said,

Quote

If this withdrawal is truly public, should it not have been announced somewhere a bit more public than a room in Ireland? Perhaps Dici or sspx.org or announced at all mass centres throughout the world?

A private meeting is not a public withdrawal. It has not been withdrawn. There will need to be a public statement on DICI etc etc and mentioned from pulpits in chapels.

Nickolas · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2013, 07:44:56 PM »

Bishop Fellay: ""Never mind the declarations, the sermons and the conferences which affirm the contrary, we’re going to look with a magnifying glass anything which we can misunderstand, in order, in an incredible process of intention, to discredit authority and make it seem lying or sneaky. It’s a real enterprise of subversion, which sows mistrust among priests and laity, and destabilises the government of our society with a view to weakening it or killing it."

These words are just plain chilling. The Bishop's own declarations, conferences, and sermons HAVE affirmed his intent as stated in the Doctrinal Declaration docuмent. They speak for themselves, period and period. Let no doubt be to that. That His Excellency try now to destroy the credibility of those who hold him accountable for his own words is utterly beyond belief, but horribly true.

Bishop Fellay, and I believe you and your assistants monitor what is said here, you are wrong to do this and it is sinful. WE HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS!!. End of story. Nothing you do, Bishop Fellay, short of reversing course and issuing an apology to God, will bring to you a good end in this epic disasterous course of action. I believe your very soul is at stake.

Bishop Fellay, we who have doubted your true intentions this past year will survive in our faith as we look after our faith zealously, even to the point of holding you accountable for what you have done and are doing. The "resistance" or rather the Traditional Catholic Church is growing and setting up for the long haul, post the fall and collapse of the SSPX should you prevail in your course of action. Given the current state of Rome, the end is not good for you. You may walk on marble floors and have a crimson cap, but the wake of your disasterous summer of 2012 lies behind you and it is a shameful one indeed.

Nickolas · « **Reply #10 on:** June 06, 2013, 08:02:59 PM »

A brief post script to my previous post:

Here we have not a prepared interview, that is prepared questions and answers, designed to deliver messages to the weak who might soak them up. Bishop Fellay had the opportunity to admit gross mistakes in judgment, admit his leadership lapses, his disaster of the summer or 2012, and what does he do? He attacks, again, those who hold him accountable. Let his own prepared questions and self serving answers to those questions speak for themselves. The complete "interview" is on sspx.org.

16. What do you say to those who claim you planned (or still plan) to compromise on the Council and with the post-Conciliar Church?

That is pure propaganda from people who wanted to split the Society. I don't know why they have these ideas. Obviously they used the very delicate situation of last year to accuse the Superior of things he never did or had the intention to do. I never had the intention to compromise the Society.

Nevertheless, ask yourself: to whom does it profit to see the Society divided, if not to the enemies? Those who divide the Society with their dialectic, they should reflect on why they do what they do. With this, I mean Bishop Williamson and the priests who follow him.

17. Looking back over the past year, is there anything you would have done differently?

Oh, certainly. We are always wiser after the battle. I would have emphasized more what I have always said, though I didn't think it was necessary to emphasize: in whatever kind of an agreement, there would always be a condition sine qua non that we are not going to compromise. There is no way. We stay as we are. This is what makes us Catholics, and we want to remain Catholics.

I certainly would have, and in fact, have already, improved communications. I was paralyzed by the leaks. I would do it otherwise now.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2013, 09:06:19 PM »

.

Now he proves the Resistance is on solid ground.

Quote from: Nickolas

A brief post script to my previous post:

Here we have not a prepared interview, that is prepared questions and answers, designed to deliver messages to the weak who might soak them up. Bishop Fellay had the opportunity to admit gross mistakes in judgment, admit his leadership lapses, his disaster of the summer [of] 2012, and what does he do? He attacks, again, those who hold him accountable. Let his own prepared questions and self serving answers to those questions speak for themselves. The complete "interview" is on sspx.org.

16. What do you say to those who claim you planned (or still plan) to compromise on the Council and with the post-Conciliar Church?

That is pure propaganda from people who wanted to split the Society. I don't know why they have these ideas. Obviously they used the very delicate situation of last year to accuse the Superior of things he never did or had the intention to do. I never had the intention to compromise the Society.

What a liar. He never had the intention of compromising the Society? So he
had 8 months to think about it and the best he could come up with was to
say that the Newmass was legitimately promulgated when it was not
promulgated at all, and most obviously not legitimately?

That's not the intention to compromise? He has been working for the past
19 years, secretly promoting GREC and advancing his minions into positions
of power and signing over real estate to his name all over the world, and he
has not been intending to compromise the Society?

Maybe he's got an oil well for sale, too?

Quote

Nevertheless, ask yourself: to whom does it profit to see the Society divided, if not to the enemies? Those who divide the Society with their dialectic, they should reflect on why they do what they do. With this, I mean Bishop Williamson and the priests who follow him.

With his own words, he makes himself an enemy of the Society, because it
is by his words and actions that the Society is becoming divided. He is not
faithful to the principles of ABL, and +W is, so what does he do, but
punish and calumniate +W!

Hey, Fellay! You're the one with the DIALECTIC!

Quote

17. Looking back over the past year, is there anything you would have done differently?

Oh, certainly. We are always wiser after the battle. I would have emphasized more what I have always said, though I didn't think it was necessary to emphasize: in whatever kind of an agreement, there would always be a condition sine qua non that we are not going to compromise. There is no way. We stay as we are. This is what makes us Catholics, and we want to remain Catholics.

I certainly would have, and in fact, have already, improved communications. I was paralyzed by the leaks. I would do it otherwise now. [/i]

READ:

Oh, certainly! We've learned our lesson this time.
I would do the same thing now if I were to do it all
over again, only with MORE PUNISHMENTS from
the very start.
I would brook no restraint.
I would take no prisoners.
I am going to DIG IN.
We stay the course!
We agree with the hermeneutic of continuity.
We will not criticize the Pope or Vat.II or the
Newmass! No way! We will not tolerate ONE WORD
of such criticism from Society priests.
ONE WORD AND YOU'RE OUT from now on.
We are battening the hatches.

We are preparing for WAR against the principles of ABL.

NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY!

No more leaks. I think we'll hire a firing squad.
Stay tuned for BLOOD.

Bookmark this post ............. you heard it here first ...............

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** June 08, 2013, 12:54:07 PM »

Those who still attend Society chapels should listen carefully tomorrow during the sermon to see if the doctrinal declaration is mentioned.

Those wishing to contact various priests can see here.

http://ireland.sspx.net/chapels/addresses.htm

Quote

THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X IN IRELAND

ADDRESSES & TELEPHONE NUMBERS

*

Note that there are no postal codes in Ireland

International telephone code: 353, then drop the 0

Residence of the Superior, Father Paul Morgan

St George's House
125 Arthur Road, Wimbledon Park
GB - London SW19 7DR

Phone: 00 44 20 89 46 79 16

Quote

Corpus Christi Priory in Athlone
Father David Sherry, Prior
Father Francis Gallagher
Brother Gerard Francis

Corpus Christi Priory
Connaught Gardens
Athlone, County Roscommon
Ireland

Phone (090) 649 2439

Quote

St Pius X House
Father Ramon Angles (resident)
Father Regis Babinet

St Pius X House
12 Tivoli Terrace South
Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin
Ireland

Phone: (01) 2842206

Quote

Presbytery of St John's in Dublin
Father Paul Bierer

St. John's Presbytery
1 Mounttown Road Upper / York Road
Monkstown, County Dublin
Ireland

Phone: (01) 2809407

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** June 08, 2013, 01:00:09 PM »

Is there any possibility of the audio of the "withdrawal" that took place in Dublin? Nothing yet on DICI, SSPX.org or other official sites. A public statement from Bishop Fellay is necessary.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** June 08, 2013, 01:04:51 PM »

Just to provide a context I share with you what 'Cassini' posted on IA

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=12326

Quote

"It is with great reluctance that I enter where angels fear to tread. I cannot think of any subject matter more likely to lose friends than this one. Already in my tiny chapel life-long friends are divided and a feather could tilt the balance. If ever the devil had found a way to divide and conquer this is the most unbelievable example. The reason being that one should not offer opinions based on second, third and fifty-hand information. Now while these opinions may be correct based on the information given, what if the information given was inaccurate or taken out of context by the sheer disbelief at the thought of the SSPX 'modernising.'

Today however, I can speak on the matter and I will. The reason why I can is because yesterday I was with a small group of SSPXers in a room for three hours with Bishop Fellay. I am not breaking any confidence because one man was openly recording the talk but ran out of space with an hour to go. The group was asked if they had any questions which were recorded and given to the bishop to answer after his talk. Needless to say the talk was about the crisis that has befallen the SSPX based on the possible reconciliation with Rome, as the papers put it.

What you are about to read is a summary of an account that contained names, positions, dates etc that I could not be expected to remember.

The 'problem' arose from the fact that Rome sent Bishop Fellay, as elected head of the SSPX, an offer of reconciliation. As was his duty, Bishop Fellay's SSPX had to reply asking what Rome had in mind. Now note the SSPX were not the ones knocking on Rome's doors looking to get back in an a compromise, but Rome instigating a reconcilliation.

There began an exchange of docuмents and statements that amounted to the following conditions held by the SSPX. The SSPX cannot, would not agree to anything that Archbishop Lefevbre had founded the Society of priests on. The following in particular: no recognition of Vatican II as an infallible council. The SSPX would acknowledge those parts that were traditional in the council, would accept wording that had a traditional interpretation, and finally, would never accept the parts like ecuмenism and religious liberty as presented in the Docuмents.

On the Mass, Bishop Fellay said that the Society would continue to accept its validity, but that it was EVIL. When questioned on this by different Cardinals, Bishop Fellay said it was based on the following criterion:
It was valid in the same way as a BLACK Mass is Valid, that is, the sacrifice is made and the host consecrated. It was EVIL in a strict sense. Evil means lacking good, completely or in part. The 'not good' parts are the loss or rubrics and prayers from the Tridentine Mass. Rubricks for example, were not developed for nothing, every move and garment had a purpose for good. For example, the priest after touching the host clasped both tumb and first index finger to prevent any crumb of the sacred host from falling to the ground. Another was the genuflections, gestures of adoration, etc etc. These 'goods' were removed from the Mass thus making the NO EVIL.

As one could imagine, the two sides were at odds. But then things got very complicated and confusing. Bishop Fellay, the SSPX, began to get messages claiming to speak for Pope Benedict. It reached a stage where Bishop Fellay was offered the following agreement by WORD OF MOUTH. Ok, we will allow you to retain your stand on Vatican II, you can retain your view on the NO mass, you will be granted more freedom for your churches and freedom to expand.

In the meanwhile the German Bishops, who HATE the Society, began their trouble making. Bishop Fellay, who has personal contacts in Rome was told that the curia were ignoring the wishes of the Pope in this matter. He gave one example of an order by the pope allowing a monk set up a chapel with Latin Mass. Six months later the monk asked for a reply to his request. The pope said he granted it six months ago. It seems the Cardinal simply put the concession in a drawer and left it there.

Throughout, Bishop Fellay said it required the upmost confidentiallity in these negotiations mainly because he did not know who was in charge of Rome. His hopes were kepy alive by the Pope's verbal wishes and promises, and then squashed by the curia. It went from one to the other. Meanwhile the rumours went flying about. True, to some people it looked like Bishop Fellay was negotiating concessions month after month, but the fact was that he did not want to end negotiations while the Pope was on the verge of granting what the Society wanted, everything Archbishop Lefevbre stood for. But there was nothing Bishop Fellay could do about it. He was caught in a dilemma. Arguments resulted and each side acted as they thought was in the interest of tradition and the SSPX.

Within weeks however, IN WRITING Rome, that is the congregation dealing with the SSPX gave an absolute NO to the SSPX's demands. Bishop Fellay did not know who to believe. One thought Rome was led by the pope as boss, but it seems there was a two-powered Rome throughout the invitation to the SSPX. They demanded the SSPX accept the deal THEY offered, No criticism of infallible Vatican II, no criticism of NO etc., or face EXCOMMUNICATION again. Bishop Fellay told them go ahead excommunicate them again, for as far as the world was informed by the Catholic press and Cardinals they were ALREADY seen as excommunicated.

Then the Pope resigned. Bishop Fellay sent back the demands of Curia Rome saying NO WAY. But said Bishop Fellay, everytime I sent back a NO WAY to Rome, they replied by asking again for the SSPX to comply. After Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the NO WAY written answer from the SSPX was responded to in this way, 'let us wait and see what the new pope might say about the situation. That way ROME is keeping the confrontation alive.

On the new Pope, Bishop Fellay said that he can only watch as things develop. He too is puzzled at the lack of respect for the office by the gestures of 'Bishop of Rome,' living in the hotel, etc. He also said in Argentina there was mixed signs. The new pope was hard on 'conservatives.' But when asked by the SSPX to co-operate in a political way to accommodate the SSPX visit Argentina to say mass etc, he did so willingly.

A questioner asked about Bishop Williamson. Bishop Fellay said that was a personal matter. He said it was heartbreaking to see the family broken up. It was obvious the break has saddened Bishop Fellay and it probably has with Bishop williamson. Finally Bishop Fellay said he is being quoted as saying many things he never said. There, he said, is the danger of the internet, now the world are told things that are not true.

So there you have it friends. I shall leave it at that and hope the Holy Ghost assists each one of you to find peace and hope in this candid talk. Be rest assured there will be NO DEAL with Modernism, no compromise, that you have the Bishop's word on, 'so help me God' as he said to us.
Quote