.
I would like to highlight just the parts that H.E. directly quotes
here with bold and blue, and the parts he summarizes with
bold and green........................
_______________________________________
I reply:
The Doctrinal Declaration, as both its name and its contents make clear, is a statement saying that a number of doctrinal positions on questions of the greatest importance in the present crisis in the Church are acceptable to the Society. The problem is that several of the positions expressed in the Doctrinal Declaration are not acceptable:
"This declaration is [...] deeply [profoundly]
ambiguous and sins by omission by failing to denounce clearly the principal errors which are still raging inside the Church and are destroying the Faith of the faithful[Catholics].
As it stands, this declaration gives the impression that we would accept what is presupposed by the 'hermeneutic of continuity'." (Critique of a member of the Society)
The harm done by the Declaration is therefore that of a doctrinally dubious public and official statement.
As such (a doctrinally dubious public and official statement) the Declaration [it]
has not been withdrawn or renounced. On the contrary, [In fact,]
Bp Fellay consistently refuses to admit that there is anything doctrinally dubious about his declaration. At the very most, he admits to having tried to be too subtle, but he doesn't admit that such a practice [stublety]
is highly objectionable in matters pertaining to the defence of the Faith. Bp Fellay claims that the whole problem is that he hasn't been properly understood, even by theologically very skilled members of the Society [SSPX].
He allows, among others, Fr Themann in the USA to defend the Declaration in public conferences that have been recorded and are being distributed among the faithful.To the objections:
1. and 2.
It is true that matters would have been even
worse, had the Doctrinal Declaration come to serve as the basis for an agreement with Rome, or if it had been imposed on the members of the Society (The plan did exist: Bp Fellay wrote to members of the upcoming chapter on April 18, 2012 that his Declaration was something "which each and all of us can sign.") But just because matters could have been even worse, this doesn't mean the issue is solved.
3. Because, when Bp Fellay says he withdraws or renounces the Declaration, it is at least very likely that all he means is that it was inopportune at that moment, that it would have brought division in the Society, and similar practical aspects. [/b][Green section replaced with the following: {... if Rome had accepted the DD, but that does not lessen the standing damage wrought by the DD’s manifestation of what is doctrinally acceptable to the SSPX. For if Bishop Fellay says that he “withdraws” and “renounces” the DD, he certainly seems to mean no more than that it was inopportune at that moment, as being liable to cause division in the SSPX.}]
He has never as much as suggested that the Declaration is doctrinally dubious and unacceptable. And that is what [where]
the real issue has been all along, and that is the issue that is far from being solved: the Superior General seems to refuse to give an [make any]
unambiguous profession of a [the SSPX's]
position that consistently and clearly rejects the principal errors which are still raging inside the church and are destroying the faith of the faithful.
4. The Letter to Friends and Benefactors Nr 80 does contain a number of clear statements, but they are all quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre, words uttered or written over 20 years ago, and can therefore not with credibility address the deficiencies and faults of the April 2012 Declaration; in fact, the impression given is that these statements of the Archbishop have always been followed by Bp Fellay. And that amounts to an implicit defence of the April Declaration as just being a clever and "updated" way of saying the same things as the Archbishop always said. Bp Fellay's frequent references (elsewhere) to purported similarities between the Declaration of April 2012 and the protocol of 1988 supports this reading of the Letter to Friends and Benefactors. What is more, Bp Fellay is not known to have referred even once during his many public conferences to the Letter to Friends and Benefactors as amounting to a refutation of his April Declaration, despite many questions on this topic.
Conclusion: The April Declaration still remains an issue, because the scandal caused by this doctrinally dubious public and official statement has not been repaired. [/b] [Green replaced with: {In conclusion, the scandal caused by the DD has still not been repaired.}]
Trying to downplay the seriousness of this matter for the purpose of maintaining or regaining peace and quiet among the faithful risks encouraging the liberal
mentality that doctrine doesn't really matter all that much, as long as things run smoothly, one can keep the [true]
Mass, a certain independence,
etc. Seeming to
encourage such a mentality will in its turn make the scandal even worse. For this reason it also seems highly objectionable to try to downplay the serious issue of the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012.[/b][Green replaced with: {Such downplaying will only make the scandal worse.}]
Commentator's Disciple
Editor's comment:
... Finally, is it true that “matters would have been even worse” had the Doctrinal Declaration succeeded? I am beginning to wonder. Time will tell. Plenty of priests who would have opposed it are now in danger of being slowly sucked in. Pray that this does not happen and that they regain their courage. - Ed.
[/size][/font]
All in all, one must admit, it is a fairly rare exception to see an EC that
is largely a verbatim quote of someone's article on a matter so
essential to the mission of the Church and the SSPX as this is.
Therefore, it is quite a compliment to the
"Commentator's Disciple" to
have his words elevated to this honorary position. I'm sure the disciple
has not been thinking the same on his (her?) own; not to mention the
unlikelihood that H.E. would go to this extent if he were not already
personally acquainted.
Topic: Eleison Comment CCCXV (Read 4175 times)