CONTINUING DAMAGE -- I
When people wish to defend the very bad Doctrinal Declaration (DD) officially submitted by the Society of St Pius X to the Roman authorities in mid-April of last year as the basis for a practical agreement between Rome and the SSPX, they will often argue that since Rome refused the DD, the DD is of no further interest and may be forgotten. But in this month’s issue of the “Recusant”, newly arisen magazine of the Resistance in England, there appears a contrary argument which deserves careful attention. Here it is, either quoted directly from the original, or summarized:--

“The DD, 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 SSPX. The problem is that several of the positions expressed in the DD are not acceptable.” For instance the SSPX’s General Chapter of last July was told by a leading theologian of the SSPX that “This Declaration is (...) profoundly ambiguous and sins by omission against the duty to denounce clearly the principal errors which are still raging within the Church and are destroying the faith of Catholics. As it stands, this Declaration gives the impression that we would accept the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’.”

“The harm done by the DD is therefore that of a doctrinally dubious public statement. Nor has it, as such, been “withdrawn” or “renounced”. In fact Bishop 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 does not admit that such subtlety is highly objectionable in matters pertaining to the defence of the Faith. Bishop Fellay complains that the whole problem is that he “has not been properly understood” even by theologically very skilled members of the 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.”

It is true that matters might have been worse 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 DD is doctrinally dubious and unacceptable. And that is 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 make any unambiguous profession of the SSPX’s position.”

In conclusion, the scandal caused by the DD has still not been repaired “Trying to downplay the seriousness of the matter for the purpose of maintaining or regaining peace and quiet among the faithful risks encouraging the mentality that doctrine does not matter all that much, as long as things run smoothly and we can keep the true Mass, etc..” Such downplaying will only make the scandal worse (End of the article in the “Recusant”).

This article states very moderately the problem of the DD not being publicly recanted or retracted by Bishop Fellay. But how can any Catholic Congregation keep and serve the Truth when it is led by a Superior who so obstinately plays at ducks and drakes with the Truth ? If the SSPX is a lifeboat, either it gets rid of this deluded Captain who constantly seeks to drill holes in the floor of the lifeboat, or the SSPX turns into a deathboat. May God in his mercy open the SSPX’s eyes.

Kyrie eleison.

He isn't kidding.  Each of us probably knows at least one such priest who is in danger of being "sucked in" -- I have images of a giant whirlpool that swallows people.  I have seen them so I know they are real.  There are natural ones that occur in the Columbia River up there near Post Falls, ID, at a place called "The Dalles."

Some just dive in!

.Okay, here we go..............        [speaking of "diving in" - hahahaha]


.This is a duplicate post.  I absolutely could not decide which thread
it belongs in more than the other, and so, I put it in both.  This is the
article from which H.E. quotes in this EC CCCXV and to which he
refers - a double reference.  The whole EC is all over this article,
specifically a portion in the middle of it, but in a more general sense,
the entire article.  It is a great EC and it is a great article, and we
would be fools to not pay close attention.  

So, pay close attention or, at your own peril,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  DON'T.    :geezer:





Post

.

The new Eleison Comments CCCXV (Continuing Damage I), centers its
subject entirely on one segment, basically one page (parts of 3 pages),
in one section of one article, "Is the DD still an issue?"

So I'll copy the article here and reference it in the EC CCCXV thread.

I've taken the liberty of changing the title to "...Still Relevant" to avoid
confusion with the fact that THIS is, after all, "still an issue" - ISSUE # 8!

It goes something like this ....................  

Is the Doctrinal Declaration Still Relevant?

A Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir,

I do commend your publication for keeping a watchful eye on the ongoing weakening of the officially promoted doctrinal position of the Society of St Pius X, the most clear example of which is the infamous Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012, and the subsequent failure to correct it. At the same time I must express reservations against some words used by for instance Father Joseph Pfeiffer in commenting on this text, and that you have published. It seems to me to be more accurate, and therefore by a necessity inherent to matters of truth or error, a more efficient way of refuting the Doctrinal Declaration to call it deeply ambiguous, erroneous and smacking of Liberalism rather than heretical, as this last term is normally reserved for "doctrines contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church."

The tendencies and errors that we are dealing with here are more subtle than outright heresy, even if it might be said that they could lead to heresy or that they are theologically erroneous. It would, in my opinion, better serve your readership if the subtle quality of these matters not be forgotten.

May I therefore propose the following argument:

Is the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012 still an issue?

It would seem that the Doctrinal Declaration of April 2012 is no longer an issue, because:

1. - Its contents was never imposed on the members or faithful of the Society.
2. - It didn't get to serve as the basis for an agreement with Rome.
3. - Bp Fellay has said that he "withdraws" and "renounces" it.
4. - Bp Fellay has addressed all the problematic topics sufficiently in his Letter to  
       Friends and Benefactors Nr 80.

_______________________________________

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 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.  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 has not been withdrawn or renounced. On the contrary, 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 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. 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. He has never as much as suggested that the Declaration is doctrinally dubious and unacceptable. And that is what 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 unambiguous profession of a 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. 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 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.

           Commentator's Disciple
__________________________________________

Editor’s Comment:
          We have had a couple of Letters to the Editor since The Recusant began circulating some nine months ago, and yet we never found room to print them: not because they were unworthy of attention, rather there were just too many other even more important things which squeezed them out. If I have decided to make an exception and to reproduce this one here, it is definitely not because I wish to encourage everyone to send me letters for publication!
          The correspondent make some very good points. Talk of “withdrawal” notwith-standing, Bishop Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration is still every bit as important an issue as ever it was. What’s more, he may well be write in saying that the word ‘heresy’ is too strong to be used here. It is a word with a precise theological definition after all. I cannot claim to be a theologian.
           If there is one point where I feel I ought to take issue with the letter above, however, it is with the quoted ‘Critique of a Member of the Society.’ It is not true to say that the Doctrinal Declaration is “deeply ambiguous” - it is not in the least ambiguous, on the contrary, for once it is something which says what it means in black and white! Nor for that matter can one say that the docuмent “sins by omission”, since this might exonerate the its many explicit sins of commission (such as stating that Vatican II enlightens and deepens Tradition, for example). Thirdly, it does not “give the impression” of accepting the hermeneutic of continuity - it most definitely does accept the hermeneutic of continu-ity, explicitly so. See paragraph III,5.
          I would certainly go further than calling the April 15th 2012 text “doctrinally dubious”. Yes, it is “doctrinally dubious” ,but this is an understatement. If it is not “heresy” properly speaking, it is certainly heterodox. It favours heresy, perhaps. One can also fairly describe the docuмent as “modernist”.
          I have noticed a reticence on the part of priests to be too critical of the Doctrinal Declaration. Indeed, if there is one thing which I find staggering, it is the underwhelming response on the part of the good priests (the bad ones see no need to criticise it –they agree with the contents of the Doctrinal Declaration!) Had the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration been written four or five years ago by Fr. Michael Mary Sim, or by the Superior General of the FSSP, let there be no doubt the SSPX priests in our country would have condemned it in the very strongest possible terms. They would not have tiptoed around calling it “ambiguous” or “dubious”... But that is another issue, dealt with elsewhere.
          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.

www.TheRecusant.com

[/size][/font]





Out of respect for the readers here on CI, I'm going to exercise
self-control and abstain from introducing here a touch of what
my highlighter-accentuated version looks like.  There are key
phrases and powerful sentences that stand all on their own, and
they ought to be listed and examined in detail.  This is the stuff
of longstanding endurance.  Historians will be looking at this for
hundreds of years, if the world lasts that long and copies survive.

Which is why you should print out hard copies on archive quality
paper with archive quality ink, not inkjet ink (which fades with
time, sunlight, humidity, ambient acids, and kitty-cat sneezes).

Subsequent posts can highlight to their hearts content, though!!   :rahrah:

.

Now, call me NUTS if you will, but this is not a good sign for the
prospect of Fr. Chazal being consecrated bishop, IMHO.  

You'll never guess why.  


Go for it.

.

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.  

Tele
Neil

You're both in need of correction unless you've already sent your posts to Bp. Fellay.  
See my post in the gender-appropriate apparel thread.  
The hatchet is in the chopping block.
I'll try to control myself.  
You two are funny, but I really think mockery is uncalled-for.